Obama cannot repeal basic economic laws
John Adams famously told us that facts are stubborn things, and nowhere is that more true than in the dismal science of economics. Eventually reality and basic laws take hold.
It is a basic economic law that people won’t loan you money if they don’t think you can pay it back. (And we have learned what happens when this law is ignored) This rule applies even to governments. This week the British government tried to sell $2.55 billion in bonds to finance their own attempts to raise spending and stimulate their economy. They couldn't find enough buyers.
More ominously, the same thing nearly happened to the U.S. government: "A record $34 billion five-year note auction on Wednesday was met with what traders described as subpar demand, with the government forced to offer a higher yield to attract buyers." For years people have worried about what would happen if the Chinese and others stopped lending us money. This week we nearly found out.
For decades, under Democrats and Republicans, we have refused to face the reality that we can’t afford the government we have created at the tax levels we are willing to pay. Now President Obama is promising to accelerate this trend by massively increasing spending while only raising taxes on “the rich,” thus exponentially increasing our already staggering debt. This week our creditors sent a clear signal that they may not be willing to continue enabling this willful disregard for basic economics, just as Congress begins serious consideration of the President’s budget. This could get interesting.
In the meantime, we were reminded recently of another basic economic law: protectionism doesn’t work. The Seattle Times editorialized:
President Barack Obama has signed an omnibus spending bill that bans Mexican trucks from the United States. Mexico has retaliated by slapping punitive taxes on some of this state's products….Mexico has slapped tariffs on a long list of U.S. goods, including 20-percent taxes on potatoes and pears. Packers in this state sold $40.3 million in potatoes to Mexico last year, and $33.5 million in pears.
Trade policy is as predictable as the rising and setting of the sun. Barriers beget barriers, action creates reaction. Calling new barriers "Fair Trade" won’t change the fact that our trading partners will retaliate, raising consumer prices and killing jobs, especially here where one third of all jobs are dependent on trade. Backtracking on trade policy will hurt Washington more than any other state. So, again, where is the outrage?










Comments:
Posted Thu, Mar 26, 12:53 p.m. inappropriate
"A record $34 billion five-year note auction on Wednesday was met with what traders described as subpar demand, with the government forced to offer a higher yield to attract buyers."
Stagflation has returned. Welcome to the 1970s. Obama is starting to look more and more like O-Jimmuh.
Posted Thu, Mar 26, 3:30 p.m. inappropriate
"It is a basic economic law that people won’t loan you money if they don’t think you can pay it back."
That's not a basic law, just common sense. Economics is a "dismal science" precisely because it is not science in any way. There are no "laws" which follow from anything physical (in contrast to chemistry or physics).
The "reality" is that, after 27 years of rapidly increasing public AND private debt (starting with the Reagan administration), it has finally dawned on people that the kind of growth necessary to finance these debt loads cannot be supported by the physical resources (especially energy) available now or in the future.
Posted Thu, Mar 26, 8:39 p.m. inappropriate
So, if you are going to grow something then it better be energy, I guess that's the logic being floated by Obama.
Had the Republicans actually done what they said they would do once in power, and not hide GW Bush's veto pen for profit taking from the tax payers to any private business that could afford a lobbyist, Chis Vance would have a proven point.
Posted Fri, Mar 27, 7:56 a.m. inappropriate
Brian and Mr. Baker are spot on.
The country is reaping the full measure of Reagan's voodoo economics and George Bush's absolute unwillingness to show any fiscal responsibility.
For a great explanation of how we got into the debt mess we're in today (and will be in the future) I invite interested parties to watch the PBS Frontline program Ten Trillion And Counting. Suffice to say that Mr. Vance's party, which is happy to mouth platitudes about "personal responsibility" and "fiscal conservativism", shows itself to be the party of complete irresponsibility and record-setting profligacy when it's actually in power. The grotesquely irresponsible book-cooking (like not putting the costs of the wars in the formal budget, and only funding them through "supplementals") and the slimy political maneuvering (firing the people who were honest about costs, using disingenuous procedural wrangling to pass a huge tax cut during a time of war) are a complete disgrace.
This mess is the legacy of letting Republicans run the show and I hope we as a nation won't make that mistake again.
At the very end of this Frontline episode they show a graph that the national debt as a percentage of GDP is expected to rise and--here's the surprise--reach levels we've experienced before, after WWII. How did the county get out of such a mess before? Do the 90% marginal tax rates of the 50s ring any bells? If Mr. Vance and his party were honest about responsibity and fiscal conservativism they'd buckle down and do the right thing, which is tell people the truth and that this is inevitable.
The only tax "increase" that the Obama administration has proposed so far is a very modest decrease in the amount of tax deductions that extremely rich people can take. In a nutshell, households who make over $171K/year will not be able to enjoy larger deductions (decreases in their tax bill) for the same financial contribution than families who make over ($82K/year). In more formal terms, families in the 33 and 35% tax bracket will only be able to treat their itemized deductions like people in the 28% tax bracket. (For an approachable discussion of marginal tax rates and how they work, see .
For reference, the wealthiest 10% of American households make $90K/year or more. The changes proposed affect maybe 7% of the most well-off American households. So when Mr. Vance says that Obama is targeting "the rich" here--well, yes, what is proposed is targeting THE RICH. These people are happy to whine that they're not all that well off, but look at the numbers, folks.
To end--facts are stubborn things, you're right, Chris. No matter how the Republicans try to spin them, I think the American people realize exactly who got us into this mess, and are starting to realize the extent to which RICH people benefited from it. Your party is going to be paying for it for a long time, in more ways than one!
Posted Fri, Mar 27, 9:08 a.m. inappropriate
Angie,
Please re-read this part of my piece:
"For decades, under Democrats and Republicans, we have refused to face the reality that we can’t afford the government we have created at the tax levels we are willing to pay. Now President Obama is promising to accelerate this trend by massively increasing spending while only raising taxes on “the rich,” thus exponentially increasing our already staggering debt. This week our creditors sent a clear signal that they may not be willing to continue enabling this willful disregard for basic economics..."
1. Both parties contributed to this problem.
2. Obama's budget makes a bad situation much, much worse.
3. We have to either significantly raise taxes on everyone, or expect less from government because it will not be possible to keep borrowing money.
Posted Fri, Mar 27, 10:06 a.m. inappropriate
BrianM, economics is a much a science as meteorology or evolutionary biology are. All are very good at explaining why things happened, not so good at making precise predictions very far out. That doesn't mean that none are useful undertakings. There are several laws of economics that are as laws of nature, impossible to change. 1) Rational people behave in what they perceive to be their self interest. 2) Scarcity causes prices to rise. 3) Abundance causes prices to fall. 4) Tax anything and you will get less of it. 5) People in government don't understand 1 through 4. And yeah, I have a degree in economics.
Posted Fri, Mar 27, 2:42 p.m. inappropriate
Everyone on this planet must know the USA has overdrawn its account. Yet the ten year treasury note is selling at about 2.75%. Would you loan money to our government at 2.75%? why would anyone? it's a pretend economy and no one is eager to drop the pretense. "..just one more season", right?
Good piece, Chris.
Posted Fri, Mar 27, 7:54 p.m. inappropriate
Mr. Vance,
Yes, both parties contributed to this problem.
Except for the part where the last administration blew all previous records out of the water, while its party nominally endorsed fiscal responsibility.
And the part about how this administration's budget makes it much much worse? Just two months into it? Oh, right.
A: Obama's budget would, in any event, appear much worse at baseline because they are ACTUALLY ACCOUNTING FOR THE COST OF TWO WARS in the budget, rather than using sophomoric accounting sleight of hand (supplemental budgets) to pretend it doesn't exist.
B: The huge goddamn costs of the goddamn implosion of the goddamn banking system is a DIRECT RESULT of the goddamn greed and goddamn supply-side-worship and the goddamn culture of chain-saw-toting goddamn deregulators from...what party would that be? Can you help us out with that, Chris? Oh, that's right, the goddamn Republicans!
The reason Obama's budget makes a bad siutation much, much worse is because HE IS PICKING UP GEORGE W. BUSH'S TAB, my friend.
Many of us young healthy people who are indeed going to be paying it off, to retirement and beyond? And watching our kids to the same? We will not forget that, and we will work tirelessly to remind our fellow citizens of it as the future unfurls.
It looks like my attempt at hyperlinking in the previous post didn't work. I encourage everyone to check out the Frontline program here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tentrillion/
and the info about marginal tax rates here:
http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/03/11/how-marginal-tax-rates-work
Finally, respectfully to dbreneman: bullshit. Economics may involve a lot of numbers but a science it is not. Go get a degree in a real science and you will begin to understand the difference. Statistics and correlation do not translate into "science". Case in point: if you think it was scarcity that made prices rise in the recent housing bubble (or the dot.com bubble, or the tulip craze...) you have well and truly swallowed the kool aid and I encourage you to seek medical attention.
Posted Sat, Mar 28, 9:06 a.m. inappropriate
Clearly, debreneman is an economist. No one else would assert "laws of nature" in relation to a human construct--the economy. We know that humans behave according to cultural imperatives, and individuals emerge out of embeddedness--individuation--only under specific conditions. The self-interested rational actor is itself a rationalization. The claims about supply are equally as myopic. Demand is the driver of price, and being largely manufactured these days, can hardly be considered naturally occurring. The cost of marketing and distribution account for an increasing share of costs. The run up in oil price over the last 3 years witnessed the cost of shipping rise from $3000 per container to $10,000 per container at the height of the bubble. Cheap Chinese consumer goods stayed cheap not because "natural laws," but due to an undervalued currency.
Posted Sat, Mar 28, 1:52 p.m. inappropriate
Clearly, Gregory Wade is a sociologist.
Posted Tue, Apr 7, 1:42 p.m. inappropriate
There are no "basic economic laws." Economy is a function of two factors, human psychology and the production and consumption of goods and services. That's it. There are so many permutations on this theme that to prescribe a "law" is complete hubris.