Category Archives: Debt

DiLorenzo Dishes It Out To Subcommittee On Domestic Monetary Policy

Business, Debt, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank, Healthcare, Individual Rights, Inflation

Pearls before swine? Probably. Still, the freedom movement is gaining momentum. First came Randy Barnett’s powerful testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee (read “Turning Citizens Into Subjects: Why The Health Insurance Mandate Is Unconstitutional”). My good friend Thomas DiLorenzo, Professor of Economics at Loyola University in Maryland, followed. Tom tried to explain to members of the Committee on Financial Services (Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology) that the “Fed’s monetary policies tend to create temporary and unsustainable increases in employment while being the very engine of recession and depression that creates a much greater degree of job destruction and unemployment.”

Here’s an excerpt from “How the Fed Fuels Unemployment”:

When the Fed expands the money supply excessively it not only is prone to creating price inflation, but it also sows the seeds of recession or depression by artificially lowering interest rates, which can ignite a false or unsustainable “boom” period. Lower interest rates induce people to consume more and save less. But increased savings and the subsequent business investment that it finances is what fuels economic growth and job creation.
Lowered interest rates and wider availability of credit caused by the Fed’s expansionary monetary policy causes businesses to invest more in (mostly long-term) capital projects (primarily real estate in the latest boom-and-bust cycle), and there is an accompanying expansion of employment in those industries. But since the lower interest rates are caused by the Fed’s expansion of the money supply and not an increase in savings by the public (i.e., by the free market), businesses that have invested in long-term capital projects eventually discover that there is not enough consumer demand to justify their investments. (The reduced savings in the past means consumer demand is weaker in the future). This is when the “bust” occurs.
The economic damage done by the boom-and-bust policies of the Fed occur in the boom period when resources are misallocated in the ways described here. The “bust” period is actually a necessary cure for the economic miscalculations that have occurred, as businesses liquidate their unsound investments and begin to make decisions on realistic, market-based interest rates. Prices and wages must return to reality as well.
Government policies that bail out businesses that have made these bad investment decisions will only delay or prohibit economic recovery while encouraging more of such behavior in the future (the “moral hazard problem”). This is how short recessions can be turned into seemingly endless ones. Worse yet is for the Fed to create even more monetary inflation, rather than allowing the necessary economic adjustments to take place, which will eventually set off another boom-and-bust cycle.

MORE.

The Liars At Labor

Business, Debt, Economy, Government, Labor

The economic “experts” have a lot riding on the recovery ass. Hence the notion of a jobless recovery, which is a lot like a housewarming for the homeless.

“The unemployment rate fell by 0.4 percentage point to 9.0 percent in January,” reports the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, at 64.2%, the labor force participation rate … is now at a 26-year low, the lowest since March of 1984. The “labor force as a percentage of total population” has plummeted.

The reason for the “drop” in the unemployment rate, as the labor force shrinks from 86.2 million to 83.9 million—or 2.2 million in one year!—is the rise in the number of discouraged individuals who’ve left the labor force.

The more accurate, less finessed, number from the Liars at Labor is the U-6, which includes the unemployed and people who would like to work, but who have not looked for a job recently, as well as those involuntarily working part-time. “Not-seasonally adjusted U-6 surged from 16.6% to 17.3%” in February.

Green Light For ‘Lights Out’

Debt, Economy, Family, Feminism, Gender, Hollywood, Pop-Culture

It has become ALMOST impossible to watch the assorted “estrogen-oozing” action dramas and crime series inflicted on the TV viewer. The phony heroine lords it over meek meterosexuals with fussy falsettos. Men know their place. Dare-devil women run the show, which makes the show dull, because 90 pounds of botoxic, silicone-plumped flesh in stilettos can’t run very fast (in real life, and I’m a sucker for reality). And you just know that back on terra firma, the 200 pounder she’s cuffing with seeming ease would have flung her as far as the equator, or coshed her to death.

A leading man is invariably a mentalist (I don’t know what that is), a gentle doctor suffering from low-sperm count, or a buffoon (“Burn Notice”).

“Lights Out” (http://www.fxnetworks.com/shows/originals/lightsout/index.php) is a good antidote to the above fare. However, it is a sad series, and the protagonist a tragic figure—“an aging former heavyweight boxing champion who struggles to find his identity and support his wife and three daughters after retiring from the ring,” played by Holt McCallany.

Last night, Lights’ typically spoiled wife (the Lovely Catherine McCormack from “Braveheart”) begins to understand the extent of the debt they have incurred, helped in no small part by her lavish lifestyle.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with voracious consumption just as long one pays for one’s purchases. The data demonstrate that Americans, in general, don’t. Of late, consumption has tended to reflect, not an increase in real wealth but an increase in indebtedness.

Aggregate household debt in the US has a lot to do with female expectations. Steve Sailer goes as far as to call this “The Estrogen Recession.” (I’m first and foremost the enemy of the Fed, fractional reserve banking, and regulation.)

In any event, from what I’ve seen, the average American woman’s existence is every bit as voracious as this fictional character’s. The evolution of the “Theresa Leary” character ought to be instructive.

Rand Paul Revs-Up

Constitution, Debt, Economy, IMMIGRATION

Sen. Rand Paul is certainly showing his sclerotic Republican colleagues how it’s done. The son of Ron has proposed $500 billion in spending cuts to take effect in a year. A laid-back Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican Leader, showed some curiosity: “There is widespread interest in the Republican conference for spending cuts that pay more than lip service to reducing the debt.” (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9L094PO1.htm)

How nice.

How will the Republican establishment grapple with Rand’s perfectly reasonable quest to limit the automatic grant of citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, unless certain conditions are met. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/28/senate-proposal-amend-constitution-restrict-birthright-citizenship/#ixzz1CUTO6zXN)

Limit? Now that’s a new concept. To stop the American Welfare State at the Rio Grande—now that would be mean. (Besides, Mitch doesn’t pay for it.)

ANN COULTER is often an ace on matters of law: “Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you’re eight and a half months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.”

… this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it sneaked in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.
The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War to overrule the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. …
The drafters of the 14th Amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. …

MORE.