Posts Tagged ‘economics’

Is this 1937 ?

Friday, July 9th, 2010

There is a frightening symmetry going on with the Great Depression. I have previously pointed this out, for example in my review of The House of Morgan by Ron Chernow. Amity Schlaes has written about the aftermath of the crash and how the Depression developed in The Forgotten Man. Both of these books are important to understand what is happening now. Chernow’s book is a bit dated as it was written after the S&L crisis of the 80s. Another, recent book is important. That is After the Fall by Nicole Gelinas.

In graphic form:

Are we at 1937 ? The economy was recovering from the crash but unemployment was still high and banks had been sorted out by the FDIC.. The FDIC is one of the best measures Roosevelt devised. I am a fan of the WPA and the CCC, both of which put men to work on useful tasks. That could never happen today because of the vast web of regulations that have grown up in recent decades, most stimulated by the environmental movement. Donald Luskin, from whose blog that image comes, has some thoughts.

The stock market tells us that last year we avoided a new Great Depression—barely. It was a close call, but we’re not headed for 1932. Now, as stocks correct from their April highs and fears of a “double dip” recession mount, should we be worried about an economic relapse like 1938?

First, the good news. An important milestone was passed last week for stocks. Friday, July 2, was the 997th day since the all-time high in October 2007. That’s how many days the bear market in the Great Depression lasted, starting at the high several weeks before the Great Crash of 1929 and ending on June 1, 1932, one month before Franklin Delano Roosevelt was nominated to run for president. [Ed The bear market had ended before Roosevelt was elected.]

At the bottom in 1932, stocks (as measured by the S&P 500) had lost 86.2% from the 1929 top. Last Friday, stocks were only off 34.7% from the 2007 top. “Only”? To be sure, losing 34.7% is no buggy-ride. But to match the devastation in the Great Depression, the S&P 500 would have to fall 806 points from Friday’s level, or 78.8%.

This comparison is no idle thought experiment. In 2008 and 2009, based on what the stock market was indicating, we really were headed for a new Great Depression. At two crucial junctures in 2008 and 2009, stocks had fallen further than they did in the Great Depression the same number of days after the 1929 top.

In 1920, Harding and Coolidge faced a similar prospect to that which faced Roosevelt. There had been a bear market and a deflationary depression since the end of World War I and the cancellation of war orders. What did they do ? They cut spending and declared “a return to normalcy.” They are often mocked by the left for this but do you know what happened ? The Depression ended in 1921.

The climax came in early March 2009. Then, with the banking system still feared to be insolvent, the hasty passage of a massive deficit-busting “stimulus” bill sent the message that an all-powerful new president and Congress would just as quickly enact their strident antibusiness agenda. At the worst, stocks plunged to show a loss of 56.8% from the 2007 highs. At the comparable point in the Great Depression, stocks were off only 49%.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the new Great Depression. Chairman Ben Bernanke’s Federal Reserve announced a massive program to buy Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities to pump liquidity into the banking system. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner deftly executed “stress tests” enabling the largest banks to be recapitalized in public markets. And one agenda item at a time—socialized health-care, cap-and-trade energy tax, unionization “card check,” mortgage “cramdown”—got diluted, slowed down or stopped.

So, the failure of most of Obama’s agenda saved the economy. OK, I’ve got that.

The most worrisome analogue is the great bear market that began in March 1937. From the top stocks lost 60% of their value, making it the second worst bear market in history. Not ending until April 1942, it was the longest ever.

That’s worrisome because, as the nearby chart demonstrates, over the last year the stock market has followed a path eerily similar to 1937. First, a strong, rapid run to a recovery high—same pace, same magnitude. Then a correction—again, the same. Will we continue on the path that led the correction of 1937 into a collapse in 1938? This question would be nothing more than a technical curiosity for chartists if it weren’t for alarmingly similar economic backdrops between the two periods.

Or, maybe it was a bear market rally.

[A]fter 1937 the economy relapsed into what historians call “the recession within the Depression,” a downturn so severe that in any other context it would qualify as a depression itself.

It was triggered by a set of very specific policy mistakes. The Fed tightened by raising reserve requirements. Consumers were hit with new taxes to pay for the then-new Social Security program. Worried about excessive deficits, Roosevelt cut government spending. At the same time, his administration accelerated antibusiness rhetoric and regulation.

Sound familiar? We’re repeating some of the same mistakes right now, even as fears of a “double dip” recession mount. Antibusiness rhetoric from the Obama administration is at toxic levels, and the pending Dodd-Frank financial reform bill is the harshest regulatory initiative in a generation. Taxes are set to rise, to support new social spending such as health-care reform, and if for no other reason because no one will stop the expiration at the end of this year of the 2003 Bush tax cuts.

Amity Schlaes has some thoughts, too.

Government can spur the private sector. That’s the gist of the argument that’s in the air this summer. This week, for example, President Barack Obama said, “we’ve got much more work to do to spur stronger job growth and to keep the larger recovery moving.” Such spurring is often said to occur in a technical way, when government outlays have a so-called multiplier effect that invigorates other economic participants.

The Obama administration has a second meaning for “to spur.” It is that government entering an industry as a competitor will strengthen that industry and make it more honest. The president has said government entry into the health insurance sector will force the private companies to lower premiums.

But in reality the government isn’t a spur, either kind. It’s a competitor. And when such a big player jumps into a market, it tends to squeeze others out. Even promising industries — the Internet sector, for example — can be hurt.

This is what happened in the 1930s to the Internet equivalent of that era, the utilities industry.

Read the rest. I am still pessimistic about the economy and, as many of my friends know, am taking steps to insulate myself from the worst.

The Tyranny of the Credentialed

Wednesday, June 30th, 2010

There is an interesting post today on the blog of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard at the Telegraph. Why is it that we get better coverage of the US economy and government from British newspapers than our own ? Don’t bother to answer as that question has an obvious answer (aside from economic illiteracy of US writers). A junior member of the Federal Reserve Board economics staff, Kartik Athreya, senior economist for the Richmond Fed, has written a ridiculous letter complaining that economics blogs should be suppressed because the bloggers do not have economics PhDs.

“Writers who have not taken a year of PhD coursework in a decent economics department (and passed their PhD qualifying exams), cannot meaningfully advance the discussion on economic policy.”

I especially like how he invites ridicule by emphasizing the quality of his own education at U of Iowa.

“The response of the untrained to the crisis has been startling. The real issue is that there is an extremely low likelihood that the speculations of the untrained, on a topic almost pathologically riddled by dynamic considerations and feedback effects, will offer anything new. Moreover, there is a substantial likelihood that it will instead offer something incoherent or misleading.”

Yes, we can’t have incoherent of misleading statements flying about the internet. I would include the statements of Nobel Prize winning economist Pail Krugman who wants to spend much, much more but who am I to question such an expert ?

“Economics is hard. Really hard. You just won’t believe how vastly hugely mind-boggingly hard it is. I mean you may think doing the Sunday Times crossword is difficult, but that’s just peanuts to economics. And because it is so hard, people shouldn’t blithely go shooting their mouths off about it, and pretending like it’s so easy. In fact, we would all be better off if we just ignored these clowns.”

I won’t argue with that. Nuclear physics is hard, too. Even Medicine can be difficult at times. Mr Evans-Pritchard (not doctor), however, has some strong opinions that, I suspect, do not agree with Dr Athreya’s.

The current generation of economists have led the world into a catastrophic cul de sac. And if they think we are safely on the road to recovery, they still fail to understand what they did.

Central banks were the ultimate authors of the credit crisis since it is they who set the price of credit too low, throwing the whole incentive structure of the capitalist system out of kilter, and more or less forcing banks to chase yield and engage in destructive behaviour.

They ran ever-lower real interests with each cycle, allowed asset bubbles to run unchecked (Ben Bernanke was the cheerleader of that particular folly), blamed Anglo-Saxon over-consumption on excess Asian savings (half true, but still the silliest cop-out of all time), and believed in the neanderthal doctrine of “inflation targeting”. Have they all forgotten Keynes’s cautionary words on the “tyranny of the general price level” in the early 1930s? Yes they have.
They allowed the M3 money supply to surge at double-digit rates (16pc in the US and 11pc in euroland), and are now allowing it to collapse (minus 5.5pc in the US over the last year). Have they all forgotten the Friedman-Schwartz lessons on the quantity theory of money? Yes, they have. Have they forgotten Irving Fisher’s “Debt Deflation causes of Great Depressions”? Yes, most of them have. And of course, they completely failed to see the 2007-2009 crisis coming, or to respond to it fast enough when it occurred.

The present policies of this administration are based on the recommendations of credentialed idiots like this letter writer and they scare the hell out of me.

The error was for the Fed to buy the bonds from the banking system (and we all hate the banks, don’t we) rather than going straight to the non-bank private sector. How about purchasing a herd of Texas Longhorn cattle? That would do it. The inevitable result of this is a collapse of money velocity as banks allow their useless reserves to swell.

Nicole Gelinas, in her book, After the Fall blames credit rating agencies and lack of regulation but she also writes that there was a brief period when an auction of non-performing assets was begun and could have set prices for the Mortgage backed bonds but this was short circuited by the Fed paying the banks full price in TARP. That ended the auction since who would sell for less than par when Uncle Sam was there paying retail ? Then, it turned out no one could decided what the retail price was since it was obvious the bonds were worth a quarter or less of the face value. The auction approach might have worked but it was aborted by government intervention, once again !

The 20th Century was a horrible litany of absurd experiments and atrocities committed by intellectuals, or by elite groupings that claimed a higher knowledge. Simple folk usually have enough common sense to avoid the worst errors. Sometimes they need to take very stern action to stop intellectuals leading us to ruin.
The root error of the modern academy is to pretend (and perhaps believe, which is even less forgiveable), that economics is a science and answers to Newtonian laws.

Here is the take-home lesson, as they say in medical school; Economics is NOT a science.

Economics should never be treated as a science. Its claims are not falsifiable, which is why economists can disagree so violently among themselves: a rarer spectacle in science, where disputes are usually resolved one way or another by hard data.
It is a branch of anthropology and psychology, a moral discipline if you like. Anybody who loses sight of this is a public nuisance, starting with Dr Athreya.

It sounds like economics shares some problems with climate science.

“Until we see a divergence from the patterns of 1929…”

Thursday, June 24th, 2010

How do you like that quote ? It comes from a CNBC piece on whether we will have a “double dip” recession. I am very pessimistic about the economy and will be as long as Obama is in office and has a Congress in the control of Democrats. The Democratic Party once understood economics but those days are gone. The “Baby Boom” generation seems to live in a fantasy world of their own making.

But Gluskin Sheff economist David Rosenberg also took up the 1930 theme in his daily analysis Thursday. He, too, noted the crash in 1929 was followed by the rally in 1930, followed by asset deflation, credit collapse, a natural disaster, geopolitical disagreements and threats, low interest rates, high gold prices and several other common characteristics.

The two analysts differ somewhat on how dire things could get for the stock market-Zimmerman is far more bearish-but both see troubling signs in the surging bond demand.

“At current yield levels (1.9% on the 5-year?), the Treasury market is screaming deflation,” Rosenberg wrote. “If it is right, not only is the consensus estimate of a new peak in corporate earnings in danger, but so is the key 1,040 technical threshold on the S&P 500.”

The yield on the benchmark 10-year note has slipped below 3.10 percent and is trending towards levels not seen since the March 2009 stock market lows.

Even as the government continues to pile up debt and deficits and supply keeps raining on the debt markets, investors are unwilling to walk away from the safety bid.

“That shows two things: People are concerned about safety and there’s no demand for credit,” Zimmerman says. “It’s demand for credit that drives the 10-year rate higher and it’s demand for safety that drives it lower. Evidently the world doesn’t like what it’s looking at.”

This analysis does not mention the poisonous atmosphere of the Obama administration for business. Even an election that devastates the Democratic majorities in both houses may not protect us as once free of the need to appeal to independents, Congress may go on a spree of bad left wing legislation.

Spending could re-explode in a lame-duck Congress because all decisions on how much to spend next year have been delayed. Neither house of Congress has adopted a budget resolution (for the first time since 1974), and none of the appropriations bills have even cleared a subcommittee.

Retiring House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D, WI), typically a staunch defender of following regular order, could see his final year blemished if the spending is rolled up into omnibus bills with who-knows-what policy riders tacked on.

A lame-duck session would offer a last-gasp chance to enact some form of carbon tax, energy tax, cap-and-trade, or requirement that utilities must use politically-correct wind or solar power rather than more consumer-affordable fossil fuels. Or card-check measures. Or the Employee Non-Discrimination Act. Or any of a multitude of provisions that now cannot pass on their own but could be stuffed into a massive last-gasp hard-to-stop appropriations omnibus.

A stake through the heart of this malignant Congress may not even do the trick.

The 1929 crash was followed by a gusher of spending and protectionism by Hoover, a good Progressive. Roosevelt actually ran against Hoover from the Right in 1932. Of course, he then flipped and followed a Progressive agenda until World War II pulled us out of the Depression.

Remember another component of the world wide Depression was a series of defaults by European countries on their war debts.

Sort of like the Euro crisis today.

The coming economic crash

Monday, June 7th, 2010

Arthur Laffer has a powerful column today in the Wall Street Journal. He, of course, was the author of the “Laffer Curve” that led to supply side economics as the economic policy of Ronald Reagan.

People can change the volume, the location and the composition of their income, and they can do so in response to changes in government policies.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the nine states without an income tax are growing far faster and attracting more people than are the nine states with the highest income tax rates. People and businesses change the location of income based on incentives.

This is one effect that supply side economics, in its most basic form, should predict. Maryland passed a “Millionaire’s Tax” a couple of years ago and discovered that millionaires and their tax revenue disappeared.

But as the state comptroller’s office sifts through this year’s returns, it is finding that the number of Marylanders with more than $1 million in taxable income who filed by the end of April has fallen by one-third, to about 2,000. Taxes collected from those returns as of last month have declined by roughly $100 million.

That is supply side economics. The basic definition is narrow, that demand does not drive the economy but that economic activity is based on incentives for the producers. If you can make more money by producing widgets, you will do so. The principle difference from Keynesian economics is that the producers themselves, not government bureaucrats, make the decisions. This is Adam Smith’s Hidden Hand. Making more widgets will not necessarily cause consumers to buy them. It is up to the producer to recognize demand and fulfill it. Sometimes they will fail because they misread the market. That is their problem, not the government’s.

People can also change the timing of when they earn and receive their income in response to government policies. According to a 2004 U.S. Treasury report, “high income taxpayers accelerated the receipt of wages and year-end bonuses from 1993 to 1992—over $15 billion—in order to avoid the effects of the anticipated increase in the top rate from 31% to 39.6%. At the end of 1993, taxpayers shifted wages and bonuses yet again to avoid the increase in Medicare taxes that went into effect beginning 1994.”

Even Hillary CLinton recognized the incentive and had her law firm bonus moved up to December 1992.

We saw this in 1992 when there was a bulge in income realizations late in the year as people anticipated higher taxes after the election of Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton’s law firm, for example, distributed bonuses in 1992 that otherwise would not have been paid until 1993. While the number of people who have this much flexibility in timing their income this way is small, the same principle applies to all income earners. In the aggregate, the impact can be large.

We have seen the same phenomenon with the “Cash for Clunkers” program and with the cash incentive for first time home buyers, which ended on April 30. In both cases, purchases were moved up to take advantage of the incentive but the sales after the incentive expired plunged. No net increase in economic activity resulted.

Laffer discusses the Reagan tax cut of 1981.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan—with bipartisan support—began the first phase in a series of tax cuts passed under the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA), whereby the bulk of the tax cuts didn’t take effect until Jan. 1, 1983. Reagan’s delayed tax cuts were the mirror image of President Barack Obama’s delayed tax rate increases. For 1981 and 1982 people deferred so much economic activity that real GDP was basically flat (i.e., no growth), and the unemployment rate rose to well over 10%.

But at the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 1983 the economy took off like a rocket, with average real growth reaching 7.5% in 1983 and 5.5% in 1984. It has always amazed me how tax cuts don’t work until they take effect. Mr. Obama’s experience with deferred tax rate increases will be the reverse. The economy will collapse in 2011.

He doesn’t mention that the delay in implementation of the tax cuts was due to Bob Dole who, as Senate majority leader, rejected supply side economics and delayed the recovery. The result was a big loss for Republicans in the 1982 election. The election this fall is being compared to the 1982 election but there is a huge difference. The Reagan loss was due to the delay in tax cuts and economic recovery. This year, the loss will be due to anticipation of Obama’s policies that have not yet taken effect. Once they are in force, things will get worse, a lot worse.

Consider corporate profits as a share of GDP. Today, corporate profits as a share of GDP are way too high given the state of the U.S. economy. These high profits reflect the shift in income into 2010 from 2011. These profits will tumble in 2011, preceded most likely by the stock market.

In 2010, without any prepayment penalties, people can cash in their Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), Keough deferred income accounts and 401(k) deferred income accounts. After paying their taxes, these deferred income accounts can be rolled into Roth IRAs that provide after-tax income to their owners into the future. Given what’s going to happen to tax rates, this conversion seems like a no-brainer.

The result will be a crash in tax receipts once the surge is past. If you thought deficits and unemployment have been bad lately, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

This might be dismissed as partisan rhetoric except that Laffer predicted the 1981 to 83 effect of delaying tax cuts.

Next year will be a bad year for the US economy. I have read an investment letter since 1977. It is called The Dow Theory Letter and it has been written by Richard Russell since the 1950s. I wish I had taken all his advice but, fortunately, I have taken some. Twice, he has sent an unscheduled warning to subscribers. Each time, it was a warning of a major drop in the stock market. Once was in 1987, a month before the 25% market drop in one day. The second time was two weeks ago. He told his subscribers to sell all their stocks. He also said that, by the end of the year, the America we know would be changed beyond description. I think there may be a bit of hyperbole in that statement but I would sell all my stocks if I still had any.

We have not yet seen the Obama policies in effect. The economy has made some tentative moves in the direction of recovery. That will end once the Obama policies take effect. I have made adjustments in my life, including selling my house. I wonder how many others are doing the same thing ?

Government Motors

Sunday, May 2nd, 2010

I thought I would provide a brief glimpse of our future auto industry.

Blogging has been slow but I hope this makes up for it a bit.

Progressive taxes

Tuesday, April 13th, 2010

UPDATE: There is more on this from National Review Online, including a letter complaining that Republicans are stupid because they don’t count FICA as “paying taxes.”

There is an argument made, even by Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, that the FICA payroll tax is regressive. The bottom 50% of American workers pay no income tax. The left then responds that the payroll tax is still paid by that segment of society and that negates the argument of the right. Let’s look at how that plays out in real life.

As you see, the lowest quintile of income group pays a net minus 27% tax rate in the payroll tax. That is, they get 27% more than they pay in during a lifetime of work. Of course, the beneficiaries of the Social Security system have to wait until they are 67 or disabled to collect those benefits. That is a form of forced saving and would work out if Congress had not spent the Social Security Trust Fund on other matters, leaving only IOUs behind to pay the benefits.

The Anglo-Saxon society was built on the Protestant Ethic of deferred gratification. That is why those who endure poverty and hard work to get an education (a real education) or to complete an apprenticeship for a trade, are rewarded later while those who chose big screen TVs and flashy cars often never get ahead. The plan for a satisfying life does not include winning the lottery. This can be difficult to explain to those who have not had a decent introduction to life from caring parents. Even so, some still figure it out. Some of them use the military to get an education when other avenues are closed. Ambition and intelligence will often emerge from unlikely places.

You would think a Nobel laureate could figure this out.

Observations on the recession

Monday, April 12th, 2010

Victor Davis Hanson has a piece today on his observations on the recession. The comments are as good as the essay, itself.

This week I drove on I-5, the 99, and 101. Except for a few stretches through San Jose to Palo Alto, most of the freeways were unchanged in the last 40 years. The California Water Project of the 1960s hasn’t been improved — indeed, it has been curtailed. My local high school looks about the same as it did in 1971. The roads in rural California are in worse condition than forty years ago.

Private houses are, of course, larger and more opulent. But the state seems not to be investing in infrastructure as before, but more in consumption and redistribution. For all the mega-deficits out here, we are not going broke building upon and improving the material world we inherited. The drive from Selma to Palo Alto is identical to the one I made in 1975 — no quicker, not really safer. The comfort and increased safety come from improved cars (seat belts, air bags, better structures), not from government’s efforts to make super freeways and new routes.

I have made this observation for some time. I came to California in 1956 to go to college. I had a very modest scholarship and very little money but I managed fairly well except for the lack of a car. I was struck by several things in my first impressions of California. The highways were the best I had ever seen. At the time, the Harbor Freeway ended at Century Boulevard and the Santa Ana Freeway ended at 17th street. There was no 405 and the Hollywood Freeway ended at Lankersheim Boulevard. I can’t remember if there was any of the San Bernardino Freeway built yet. I don’t think so. The downtown interchange was called the “fourway” because the Harbor connected with the Pasadena and the Hollywood connected with the Santa Ana. Construction continued under Pat Brown until the present configuration was largely complete. Then came Jerry Brown and construction stopped. We were supposed to learn that “Small is beautiful” and the decline of California began there. Now, he is running for Governor again. God help us !

Here follows some other unscientific observations. This is a funny recession. My grandfather’s stories of the Great Depression — 27 relatives in my current farmhouse and barn — were elemental: trying to find enough food to survive, and saving gasoline by shifting to neutral and gliding to stops or on the downhill.

My parents did better than this but my grandparents had a farm and my father had various jobs in Chicago. My mother lived with her sister and brother-in-law (who is my male hero). He sheltered many members of his wife’s family in a big house and supported them all with his job as a master bricklayer in a steel mill. His father had been superintendent of bricklayers in that mill before him. The mill is now closed. My mother worked in a warehouse, technically as a secretary but she had a more responsible job, until she was married and then, after I was in the 8th grade and my sister in the 5th, she went back to work. She did not like to ask my father for money. She worked until she was 77 years old when the company told her she would have to retire as no one knew how old she was and they would have trouble with their insurance if someone was over 65 and working. During the Depression, she also worked as a legal secretary and could type 120 words per minute. I could dictate my high school papers to her at normal conversational speed. She told us that she was subject to income tax but the amount was so small that her employer paid it as a fringe benefit.

The problem I saw this week was rampant obesity, across all age and class lines. If anything, the wealthier in Palo Alto/Stanford eat less (yes, I know the liberal critique that they have capital and education to shop for expensive healthier fruits and vegetables while the poor and neglected must turn to fast food, coke, and pop tarts). No matter — a lot of Americans are eating too much and moving too infrequently — and no one, at least if girth matters, is starving.

My mother walked to work from the train terminus every morning, a distance of about a mile. My father could carry a juke box (his business in the 1940s) up a flight of stairs on his back. He was the strongest man I ever saw. He owned a music company with a partner and he had a story that might have been a joke. They had a pair of piano movers that worked for them. The two consisted of an enormous Pole and a skinny little Indian. The Indian was the man at the bottom carrying the piano up a flight of stairs.

There is a new beggar. I see him on the intersections now on major urban boulevards. They are never illegal aliens, rarely African-Americans, but almost all white males, and of two sorts. One is someone who looks homeless, not crippled but in a walker or wheelchair (yet he gets up occasionally). He has a sign on cardboard with a wrenching narrative (fill in the blanks: veteran, of course; disabled; will work (not) for food, etc.). Choice corners become almost enclaves, as two or three cluster on islands and stoplights, as if certain franchises are choice and more lucrative than others.

I’ve seen a lot of homeless-looking white beggars and quite a few black beggars at freeway off-ramps where there is a stoplight. I haven’t seen the affluent looking ones he mentions but Orange County might be less tolerant of them than Palo Alto. I have listened to conversations in the market. Two very attractive women in their late 30s were talking near me in the meat department. One said “Well, we’re still paying our bills.” There was an open house last weekend, a block from me, that had a sign “bank owned.” I wonder how many others there are in this area. It was the largest model of the style of homes in this neighborhood.

I confess this week to have listened in on many conversations in Palo Alto and at Stanford, read local newspapers, and simply watched people. So I am as worried about the elite upscale yuppie as the poor illegal alien. The former have lost almost all connection with physical labor, the physical world, or the ordeal that civilization endures to elevate us from the savagery of nature.

While many were fit, and seem to work out, bike, ski, and hike, none understood the mechanics that lie beneath the veneer of the good life — the chain-sawing, hammering, drain-unplugging, tractor-driving, irrigating, and welding that allows a pleasant afternoon Greek salad and cappuccino on University Avenue — the disconnect between those Pennsylvania “clingers” and Obama’s arugula-eating crowd.

I have worried about this quite a bit. It goes back a ways. When I applied for a surgical residency, only one professor asked me about whether I used tools or played a musical instrument. That was 40 years ago. I have always had tools around and have made them available to my children. One son has gotten into the use of tools and has borrowed many of mine but I don’t mind. He has a family and a house to maintain. The whole culture of tools is important to me. One of Hanson’s commenters said it well.

This passage reminds me of a book I recently read on the Internet Archive : Mind and hand : manual training, the chief factor in education by Charles Ham. Categorized as a vocational text but it is actually promoting the inclusion of manual training as part of the intellectual development of students. The author does a survey from Egypt to 19th century America discussing how as civilizations became separated from manual labor they have declined. I really recommend chapter 2 on the Majesty of Tools. The guy really raises tools to a higher level. But the curious item is, if you ignore that the author mentions nothing after 1899, it could be discussing today’s society.

For if man without tools is nothing, to be unable to use tools is to be destitute of power; and if with tools he is all, to be able to use tools is to be all-powerful. And this power in the concrete, the power to do some useful thing for man—this is the last analysis of educational truth.

We are now governed by a generation of talkers. They do nothing but talk and, worse, believe that talk will solve problems, even with enemies. Reading and talking are important as it is the way we learn but there are many things that cannot be accomplished except by getting hands dirty. Sometimes that is a metaphor. I didn’t get my hands dirty in surgery but I often came home drenched in blood or had to shower and wash out my underwear after a big trauma case. Not all of life fits between the pages of a book.

Why Tom Freidman will be disappointed

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

New York Times columnist Tom Freidman has expressed a wistful admiration for the Chinese government and its ability to get things done.

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China’s leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.

I think Tom is going to be very disappointed if this article is correct, and I think it is.

The world looks at China with envy. China’s economy grew 8.7 percent last year, while the world economy contracted by 2.2 percent. It seems that Chinese “Confucian capitalism” – a market economy powered by 1.3 billion people and guided by an authoritarian regime that can pull levers at will – is superior to our touchy-feely democracy and capitalism. But the grass on China’s side of the fence is not as green as it appears.

In fact, China’s defiance of the global recession is not a miracle – it’s a superbubble. When it deflates, it will spell big trouble for all of us.

Oh oh.

To understand the Chinese economy, consider three distinct periods: “Late-stage growth obesity” (the decade prior to 2008); “You lie!” (the time of the financial crisis); and finally, “Steroids ’R’ Us” (from the end of the financial crisis to today).

The first period is like Starbucks.

About a decade ago, the Chinese government chose a policy of growth at any cost. China’s leaders see strong gross domestic product (GDP) growth not just as bragging rights, but as essential for political survival and national stability.

Because China lacks the social safety net of the developed world, unemployed people aren’t just inconvenienced by the loss of their jobs, they starve; and hungry people don’t complain, they riot and cause political unrest.

So did Starbucks, sort of.

To achieve high growth, China kept its currency, the renminbi, at artificially low levels against the dollar. This helped already cheap Chinese-made goods become even cheaper. China turned into a significant exporter to the developed economies.

Normally, if free-market economic forces were at work, the renminbi would have appreciated and the US dollar would have declined. However, had China let this occur, demand for its products would have declined, and its economy wouldn’t have grown at roughly 10 percent a year, which it did during the past decade.

The more China sold to the United States, the more dollars it accumulated, and thus the more US Treasuries it bought, driving our interest rates down. US consumers responded to these cheap goods and cheap home loans by going on a buying binge.

However, companies and countries that grow at very high rates for a long time will inevitably suffer from late-stage growth obesity. Consider Starbucks: In 1999, it had 2,000 stores and was adding 1.8 stores a day. In 2007, when it had 10,000 stores, it had to open 5.5 stores a day in a desperate bid to keep growth rates up. This resulted in poor decisions and poor quality – a recipe for disaster.

In China, political pressure for full employment has led to similar late-stage growth obesity. In 2005, China built the largest shopping mall in the world, the New South China Mall: Today it’s 99 percent vacant. China also built up a lavish district in a city called Ordos: Today, it’s a ghost town.

Starbucks can close poorly performing stores. What will China do ? Stage II “You lie !”

All good things come to an end, and great things come to an end with a bang. When the financial meltdown erupted in 2008, US and global banks started dropping like flies. Countries everywhere suffered contraction.

Even China.

During the crisis, Chinese exports were down more than 25 percent, tonnage of goods shipped through railroads was down by double digits, and electricity use plummeted.

Yet Beijing insisted that China had magically sustained 6 to 8 percent growth.

China lies. It goes to great lengths to maintain appearances, including censoring media and jailing those who write antigovernment articles. That’s why we have to rely on hard data instead.

Sorry, Tom.

In the midst of the financial crisis, in late 2008, Beijing fire-hosed a $568 billion stimulus into the Chinese economy. That’s enormous! As a percentage of GDP, it would be like a $2 trillion stimulus in America, nearly triple the size of the one Congress passed last year.

It gets even more interesting. Unlike Western democracies, whose central banks can pump a lot of money into the financial system but can’t force banks to lend or consumers and corporations to spend, China can achieve both at lightning speed.

The government controls the banks, so it can make them lend, and it can force state-owned enterprises (one-third of the economy) to borrow and to spend. Also, because the rule of law and human and property rights are still underdeveloped, China can spend infrastructure project money very fast – if a school is in the way of a road the government wants to build, it becomes a casualty for the greater good.

Does that sound like anyone here that you know of ? Government controls the banks and makes them lend ?

Well, not yet anyway.

To maintain high employment, China has poured money into infrastructure and real estate projects. This explains why, in 2009, new floor space doubled and residential real estate prices surged 25 percent. This also explains why the Chinese keep building new skyscrapers even though existing ones are still vacant.

The enormous stimulus has exacerbated problems that already existed, threatening to turn China into a less shiny but more drastic version of debt-riddled Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

What happens in China doesn’t stay in China. A meltdown there – or even a slowdown – would have severe consequences for the rest of the world.

It will tank the commodity markets. Demand for industrial goods will fall off the cliff. Finally, Chinese appetite for our fine currency will diminish, driving the dollar lower against the renminbi and boosting our interest rates higher. No more 5 percent mortgages and 6 percent car loans.

That is why I am downsizing and getting fixed rate mortgages. The storm is coming and it will be really bad. I don’t know if we can stop it, even with a Republican Congress. After all, they helped bring it on.

The pleasures of medicine; or not.

Sunday, March 7th, 2010

UPDATE: Nearly half of all physicians plan to quit if Obamacare passes. Many will phase out but it will be a disaster. I’m sure Obama has plans to fix it.

I have been a physician for almost 44 years. I graduated from medical school in 1966 and finished my residency training as a surgeon in 1972. Since I began medical school in 1962 (For the second time but that’s another story), I spent ten years learning to do what I did until I retired from surgery in 1994 after back surgery. I have gone on doing medical things since then but I had to give up surgery. The 27 years I spent as a surgeon (including my training) were the best years of my life. Had I not injured my back in college, I would still be practicing, even at 72. The early years of my career as a surgeon were the golden age of medicine in this country. We still could not cure some diseases and we especially were limited in our ability to deal with infection in some cases but the life of a physician or a surgeon was the best it would ever be.

About 1987, things really began to change for the worse. Some of it was the fault of the profession, some the fault of politics and some the fault of human nature. In 1978, the first political reaction to the rapid growth in the cost of medicine appeared. It was called PSRO, or Professional Standards Review Organization. Of course, it had little relationship to professional standards and everything to do with cost. We all had to participate like some Red Guards self examination in Mao’s China. We learned how to analyze care for what were purportedly quality issues but we all immediately recognized as cost. All the doctors of the hospital staff had to attend these classes and learn how to do this. Then we had to “volunteer” for committees to review cases to see if they met the standards. The standards always seemed to focus on cost issues, such as length of stay. Length of stay is an American obsession. A few years after this first experience with self examination, we began to have demands from Medicare and insurance companies for AM admissions before surgery.

AM admission is one of the examples of the lunatic aspect of government intervention in medicine. People who were to have major operations were expected to get up at 4 AM the day of surgery and come to the hospital at 5:00 for a 7:30 surgery. They were given instructions about not eating or drinking after midnight or whatever. Why not just have them come in at 6 PM the night before and be prepared then. ? They would sleep better with a sleeping pill, we would know for sure that they hadn’t had a late snack in spite of instructions and the hospital staff would know they were there, ready for surgery.

When this began, I asked what I thought was a logical question. Why are we doing this ? Cost, I was told. Why charge for the admission day before surgery? We could just make that a free day since the patients came in after 3 PM anyway. Nobody ever answered. The hospital had to add staff for the early morning shift. Sometimes a patient would not show up or arrive too late for their 7:30 case. Then we would scramble around to see if the next patient could come in early instead of the 10 o’clock they had been told. The schedule would be shifted around and the charge nurse would call the next surgeon to see if he could come in early, only to find he was doing surgery in another hospital at that time. I was sure, and still am, that the costs were no different and the aggravation and even the danger was increased for no good reason. It’s a bit like the Army. “Why are we doing this sir?” “Because I said so !” “Thank you sir.” A stint in the Army is helpful in understanding how government works.

That was the beginning. Next came calling the insurance company for permission to do surgery. In 1987 came the new way of being paid for care. It was called Resource Based Relative Value Scale, or RBRVS. A Harvard professor came up with a new way to pay for care. The methodology was supposed to account for the value of inputs in determining what Medicare (and quickly all insurance companies followed suit) would pay. It is related to the “Labor Theory of Value.” If you follow the link, you will see who thought this up. The original Relative Value System was developed by the California Medical Association in the 1930s. It was constructed by doctors to rate services, relative to each other, on what the price should be. I have previously covered some of this in a post on “How we got here.” Now, we have arrived at a system that is so onerous and counterintuitive that doctors have lost a lot of the pleasure of private practice. As usual, Thomas Sowell has something to say about it that concisely summarizes the foolishness of the present situation. If that is not enough, there are numerous examples of what government medicine eventually looks like. If you remove the pleasure, pretty soon everyone turns into the DMV or the Post Office employee. I mean no insult to those people but psychology has rules about behavior. Read the Thomas Sowell article. He always has something worth while to say. This is even better than most.

Sayonara Senator Bunning

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

UPDATE: This takedown of Paul Krugman is hilarious. He attacks Bunning and is show to be an incredible phony.

Krugman:

Today, Democrats and Republicans live in different universes, both intellectually and morally.
“What Democrats believe,” he says “is what textbook economics says” But that’s not how Republicans see it. Here’s what Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, had to say when defending Mr. Bunning’s position (although not joining his blockade): “unemployment relief “doesn’t create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.”

Krugman scoffs: “To me, that’s a bizarre point of view–but then, I don’t live in Mr. Kyl’s universe.”

Taranto:

What does textbook economics have to say about this question? Here is a passage from a textbook called “Macroeconomics”:

“Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker’s incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of “Eurosclerosis,” …

So it turns out that what Krugman calls Sen. Kyl’s “bizarre point of view” is, in fact, textbook economics. The authors of that textbook are Paul Krugman and Robin Wells. Miss Wells is also known as Mrs. Paul Krugman.

Unbelievable.

Jim Bunning was a famous major league pitcher who was elected to the US Senate in 1986 from his home state of Kentucky. He has had a reputation as being a bit quirky, especially in recent years and he announced last year that he would not seek re-election. He is 79 years old and would be 80 at the start of his next term. He has been in the news lately for a one man objection to extension of unemployment benefits. Naturally, his position has been demagogued all over the world and he finally gave in in return for a symbolic vote, which will be meaningless since his fellow Republicans left him to face the world alone. The story was that he is “an angry Senator” who does these quirky things for no good reason. For example, he attacked the Treasury Secretary for his responsibility in the financial crisis. Bunning has been saying inconvenient things about the current fiscal crisis. For another example, his objection to the unemployment extension was the failure to pay for it by deleting other spending.

Andy McCarthy explains what happened and why it matters.

The Kentucky Republican finally caved in Tuesday after relentless pressure from other senators — including Republicans — to drop what the Politico called his “one man” filibuster of a bill to extend expiring unemployment benefits. Technically, it was not a filibuster. It was an objection to a procedure, called “unanimous consent,” used to speed along uncontroversial legislation.

He was right to do so. These extensions happen continually. The stimulus — which is a redistribution of wealth from the private to the public sector, and from people who work to people who don’t — extended unemployment benefits for 53 weeks. Another extension in November added 20 more weeks. Cato’s Alan Reynolds reports that this brings the total to 99 weeks of benefits in high-unemployment states. The measure on which Bunning has relented adds another month. And having browbeaten him into withdrawing his objection, Democrats will now seek an extension through the end of this year, i.e., another 36 weeks or so.

The Democrats gave him a small concession for withdrawing his objection. His amendment to pay for the extension by canceling one of the many “green initiatives” that are throwing billions down that rat hole, will be allowed a vote. The vote, of course, will be lost because he was not supported by his fellow Republicans. His lonely stand for fiscal sanity was a tiny drop in an ocean of recklessness. He explains himself today in an op-ed.

None of this is paid for. Instead, the government borrows ever more money, incurring ever more debt and ever more interest on that debt. The price tag on the relatively modest, stopgap measure Bunning was blocking is put at $10 billion, but that does not count the interest that will be paid on the money borrowed to fund the bill. To count the interest would be to highlight the fact that we are filching the money from our children and their children rather than paying for spending today by cutting something else. Bunning wasn’t even against spending the money; he just wanted the something else identified and cut.

That proved unacceptable, and not only to Democrats. Maine’s Susan Collins took to the Senate floor to assure Americans that Bunning’s radical views about Congress’s not spending yet more billions it doesn’t have “do not represent a majority of the Republican caucus.” And sure enough, they didn’t. Once Bunning backed down, the measure passed by a whopping 78-19.

In this case, there ought to have been raging controversy: Bunning was objecting to yet another monthly extension of unemployment payments absent an explanation of how it would be paid for.

This why we should be suspicious of Republican assurances that they will prove fiscally conservative once elected into the majority. They are also the party of government; just a little more slowly.

Think about that. We are talking about $10 billion in a year when Leviathan is slated to spend a total of $3.6 trillion. The majority of Senate Republicans joined Democrats in concluding that the allocation of every one of these 3.6 thousand billion dollars is so vital that not one of them could be sacrificed in favor of unemployment insurance. So another $10 billion just gets heaped on the already unfathomable trillion-dollar deficits stacking year upon year.
The pols call these mounting months (now years) of unemployment benefits “temporary,” even though the real unemployment rate remains in the double digits and no relief is in sight. The “temporary” label is a budgetary trick. It enables lawmakers to sidestep “PAYGO” — Pay As You Go — restrictions that require the federal government to pay for current obligations out of current revenues. Democrats recently made a big show of reinstituting PAYGO — but not until after they’d blown deficit spending through the stratosphere.

I am taking steps to cope with another Depression. The Republicans don’t seem to be concerned. Read the rest of McCarthy’s article.