Home » Posts tagged 'government spending' (Page 3)

Tag Archives: government spending

Olduvai
Click on image to purchase

Olduvai III: Catacylsm
Click on image to purchase

Post categories

Post Archives by Category

Fixing Infrastructure Isn’t as Simple as Spending Another Trillion Dollars

Fixing Infrastructure Isn’t as Simple as Spending Another Trillion Dollars

It isn’t easy to add new subway lines or new highways, and so “solutions” don’t really exist.

If there’s one thing Americans can still agree on, it’s that America needs to spend more on infrastructure which is visibly falling apart in many places. This capital investment creates jobs and satisfies everyone’s ideological requirements: investment in public infrastructure helps enterprises, local governments and residents.

Unfortunately, it isn’t a simple as spending another trillion dollars. Spending money is the easy part; actually fixing what’s broken isn’t just a matter of spending more money.

The poster child for spending trillions on infrastructure and getting very little value is Japan, which has funneled much of its fiscal stimulus over the past 30 years into vast and largely needless infrastructure projects: bridges and roadways that are lightly used being just one example.

The reason for the this low-value-creation policy is the political power of the construction industry and the convoluted political structure which gives rural areas inordinate political power over public spending. As a result, enormously expensive and utterly needless highways and bridges litter lightly populated rural communities which have become dependent on construction jobs for what little remains of the local economy.

In other words, what’s broken in Japan remains broken. Spending more on infrastructure hasn’t fixed what’s dragging the nation into permanent stagnation.

If you live in any of America’s major urban centers (or happen to visit), you know that traffic congestion is now off the scale. From Portland to Las Vegas to Atlanta, traffic jams and crushing commutes are now the norm.

Soaring housing costs have pushed workers farther into the exurbs, lengthening commutes and choking highways constructed for a much smaller populace.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Debt Doesn’t Matter, Because “We Owe It to Ourselves”? Why Krugman and Keynes Are Wrong about This

Debt Doesn’t Matter, Because “We Owe It to Ourselves”? Why Krugman and Keynes Are Wrong about This

It is an undeniable fact that debt, whether private or public, must, eventually, be repaid.

Creditors have better memories than debtors. This elegant line was coined by Benjamin Franklin—political philosopher, prolific writer, humorist and American ambassador to France. Mr. Franklin also was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America. A true polymath and a man of great common sense.

An entrepreneur assumes he is entitled to an inexhaustible supply of credit and nonchalantly racks up debt. Soon, he will discover that creditors have better memories than debtors. Credit will dry up. Workers will stop working. Suppliers will stop supplying. Debt, after all, needs to be paid back. Credit and debt are two sides of the same coin.

They will insist there is something subtle about debt we don’t understand.

The creditor is always a virtual partner of the debtor. He has linked his fate with that of the debtor. Every grant of credit is a speculative entrepreneurial venture, the success or failure of which is uncertain.” – Ludwig von Mises in Human Action (Chapter 20 – p539)

Mainstream economists will not deny this. After all, how could they? Yet, they will say we got it wrong. They will argue we don’t get the full picture. They will insist there is something subtle about debt we don’t understand.

We Owe it to Ourselves

The subtlety we fail to see—according to the mainstream—is that public debt and private debt are two different animals. When government owes money to other organizations or individuals, a different rule applies than when a private person or a private enterprise owes money. That rule is: we owe it to ourselves.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Italy’s Countdown to Fiscal Crisis

Italy’s Countdown to Fiscal Crisis

Italy’s current scheme of piling unfunded government spending on top of an already-huge debt is a recipe for disaster.

As a general rule, we worry too much about deficits and debt. Yes, red ink matters, but we should pay more attention to variables such as the overall burden of government spending and the structure of the tax system.

That being said, Greece shows that a nation can experience a crisis if investors no longer trust that a government is capable of “servicing” its debt (i.e., paying interest and principal to people and institutions that hold government bonds).

This doesn’t change the fact that Greece’s main fiscal problem is too much spending. It simply shows that it’s also important to recognize the side-effects of too much spending (if you have a brain tumor, that’s your main problem, even if crippling headaches are a side-effect of the tumor).

Anyhow, it’s quite likely that Italy will be the next nation to travel down this path.

This is in part because the Italian economy is moribund, as noted by the Wall Street Journal.

Italy’s national elections…featured populist promises of largess but neglected what economists have long said is the real Italian disease: The country has forgotten how to grow. …The Italian economy contracted deeply in Europe’s debt crisis earlier this decade. A belated recovery now under way yielded 1.5% growth in 2017—a full percentage point less than the eurozone as a whole and not enough to dispel Italians’ pervasive sense of national decline. Many European policy makers view Italy’s stasis as the likeliest cause of a future eurozone crisis.”

Why would Italy be the cause of a future crisis?

For the simple reason that it is only the 4th-largest economy in Europe, but this chart from the Financial Times shows it has the most nominal debt.

So what’s the solution?

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Whatever Happened to Saving for a Rainy Day?

The National Debt Clock is a very very large digital display of the current gross national debt of the United StatesMichael Brochstein/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Whatever Happened to Saving for a Rainy Day?

The US will be paying for its current fiscal excesses with the promise of future payments. But inefficient economic stimulus now will not give future generations the productive resources needed to make good on it.

CAMBRIDGE – More than a decade ago, I undertook a study, together with Graciela Kaminsky of George Washington University and Carlos Végh, now the World Bank’s chief economist for Latin America and the Caribbean, examining more than 100 countries’ fiscal policies for much of the postwar era. We concluded that advanced economies’ fiscal policies tended to be either independent of the business cycle (acyclical) or to lean in the opposite direction (countercyclical). Built-in stabilizers, like unemployment insurance, are part of the story, but government outlays also worked to smooth the economic cycle.

The benefit of countercyclical policies is that government debt as a share of GDP falls during good times. That provides fiscal space when recessions materialize, without jeopardizing long-run debt sustainability.

By contrast, in most emerging-market economies, fiscal policy was procyclical: government spending increased when the economy was approaching full employment. This tendency leaves countries poorly positioned to inject stimulus when bad times come again. In fact, it sets the stage for dreaded austerity measures that make bad times worse.

Following its admission to the eurozone, Greece convincingly demonstrated that an advanced economy can be just as procyclical as any emerging market. During a decade of prosperity, with output close to potential most of the time, government spending outpaced growth, and government debt ballooned. Perhaps policymakers presumed that saving for a rainy day is unnecessary if this time is different and perpetual sunshine is the new normal.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Rising Economic Head Winds

Rising Economic Head Winds

Remember the “tea party” revolt in 2009–2010 against government bailouts and government spending?

Remember the “fiscal cliff” drama of Dec. 31, 2012, when Congress raised taxes and cut spending to avoid a debt default and government shutdown?

Remember the actual government shutdown in October 2013 as Republicans held the line against more government spending?

Well, congratulations if you do, because everyone else seems to have forgotten.

The days of caring about debt and deficits are over. In just the past two months, Republicans passed the Trump tax cuts that will increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion on a conservative estimate, and probably much more.

Then Republicans and Democrats “compromised” on eliminating caps on defense spending and domestic spending by agreeing to more of both. That repeal of the so-called “sequester” will add over $300 billion to the deficit over the next two years.

Then there’s a tsunami of student loan debts in default that the Treasury has guaranteed and will have to pay off. Finally, the higher interest rates from this debt will add $210 billion to the annual deficit for every 1% increase in average federal debt funding costs.

Today we are looking at $1 trillion-plus deficits as far as the eye can see.

That’s extraordinary enough. What is more extraordinary is that no one cares! Democrats, Republicans, the White House and everyday Americans are all united in totally ignoring the fact that America is going broke.

This euphoric mood in response to more spending won’t last. The growth is not there to pay for the tax cuts, and the economy is not even growing fast enough to keep up with the growth in the debt.

 

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

When America’s Fiscal Crisis Hits, Be Forewarned that Tax Increases Will Make a Bad Situation Worse

When America’s Fiscal Crisis Hits, Be Forewarned that Tax Increases Will Make a Bad Situation Worse

When America’s fiscal crisis hits, remember that raising taxes will only exacerbate the problem.

At some point in the next 10 years, there will be a huge fight in the United States over fiscal policy. This battle is inevitable because politicians are violating the Golden Rule of fiscal policy by allowing government spending to grow faster than the private sector (exacerbated by the recent budget deal), leading to ever-larger budget deficits.

I’m more sanguine about red ink than most people. After all, deficits and debt are merely symptoms. The real problem is excessive government spending.

But when peacetime, non-recessionary deficits climb above $1 trillion, the political pressure to adopt some sort of “austerity” package will become enormous. What’s critical to understand, however, is that not all forms of austerity are created equal.

The crowd in Washington reflexively will assert that higher taxes are necessary and desirable. People like me will respond by explaining that the real problem is entitlements and that we need structural reform of programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. Moreover, I will point out that higher taxes most likely will simply trigger and enable additional spending. And I will warn that tax increases will undermine economic performance.

Regarding that last point, three professors, led by Alberto Alesina at Harvard, have unveiled some new research looking at the economic impact of expenditure-based austerity compared to tax-based austerity.

…we started from detailed information on the consolidations implemented by 16 OECD countries between 1978 and 2014. …we group measures in just two broad categories: spending, g, and taxes, t. …We distinguish fiscal plans between those that are expenditure based (EB) and those that are tax based (TB)… Measuring the macroeconomic impact of a plan requires modelling the relationship between plans and macroeconomic variables.

Here are their econometric results.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Does Government Spending Create More Economic Growth?

Does Government Spending Create More Economic Growth?

spending.PNG

After the 2007-2009 global financial crisis, fears of ballooning public debt and worries about the drag on economic growth pushed authorities in some countries to lower government spending, a tactic that economists now think may have slowed recovery. Note that in the United States the total debt to GDP ratio stood at 349 in Q1 this year.

In a paper presented at the Kansas City Federal Reserve’s annual economic symposium on August 26 2017, Alan Auerbach and Yuriy Gorodnichenko from the University of California suggested that “expansionary fiscal policies adopted when the economy is weak may not only stimulate output but also reduce debt-to-GDP ratios”. (Fiscal Stimulus and Fiscal Sustainability, August 1,2017, UC – Berkley and NBER).

shos1_5.PNG

Some commentators are of the view that these findings may be welcome news to central bankers who face limited options of their own to combat a future downturn, given existing low interest rates and low inflation rates in their economies. “With tight constraints on central banks, one may expect — or maybe hope for — a more active response of fiscal policy when the next recession arrives,” the University of California researchers wrote.

These findings are in agreement with Nobel Laureate in economics Paul Krugman, and other commentators that are of the view that an increase in government outlays whilst the economy is relatively subdued is good news for economic growth.

Can increase in government outlays strengthen economic growth?

Observe that government is not a wealth generating entity as such — the more it spends, the more resources it has to take from wealth generators. This in turn undermines the wealth generating process of the economy.

The proponents for strong government outlays when an economy displays weakness hold that the stronger outlays by the government will strengthen the spending flow and this in turn will strengthen the economy.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Federal books in $2.8B deficit over first four months of fiscal year

Between April and July of this year, federal revenues were $2.3 billion lower compared with last year, while program expenses were $6.5 billion higher. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

New numbers released Friday show the federal government ran a deficit of $2.8 billion over the first four months of 2016-17 — dropping Ottawa’s fiscal position $8 billion lower than it was over the same period a year ago.

By comparison, Ottawa had a $5.2-billion surplus during the same April-to-July stretch last year, according to the Finance Department’s monthly fiscal monitor.

This year in July alone, the report said the government books showed a deficit of $1.8 billion — down from a $200-million surplus a year earlier. The July data included a $1.4-billion increase in program expenses, an $800-million decline in revenues and a $200-million decrease in public-debt charges.

Between April and July, the numbers show federal revenues were $2.3 billion lower compared with last year, while program expenses were $6.5 billion higher. The government’s debt-servicing costs were $800 million lower over the time period, mostly because of the impacts of weaker inflation on bonds and a lower average interest rate.

Earlier this week, the federal budget watchdog said government spending under the Liberal government over the first three months of the fiscal year reached its highest mark in at least six years.

Higher program spending

On Friday, the fiscal monitor said the bulk of the added spending between April and July was due to a $3.9-billion increase in direct program expenses compared with a year ago — a spike of 11.9 per cent.

A closer look at the increase showed that transfer payments were up $2 billion, or 21 per cent. Finance said the bigger number was a reflection of year-over-year differences in the timing of the payments and an increase in disaster assistance.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Can We Grow Out Of Our Problems If We’re Not Actually Growing?

The rationale for today’s easy money policies is pretty straightforward: Falling interest rates and rising government deficits will counteract the drag of excessive debts taken on in previous stimulus programs and asset bubbles, enabling the developed world to create wealth faster than it takes on new debt. The result: a steady decline in debt/GDP to levels that allow the current system to survive without wrenching changes.

That’s a seductive, free-lunchy kind of idea — if it actually worked. But as the following chart of historical US GDP growth illustrates, as we’ve taken on more and more debt, each successive stimulus program has generated less and less growth. Compare the past few years to the rip-roaring recoveries of the 1960s through 1990s and it’s clear that whatever mechanism once converted easy money into greater wealth is no longer operating.

GDP April 16

And note that the 2% recent growth on the above chart doesn’t include the revision of Q4 2015 growth to only 1.4%, and the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow projection of 0.4% growth for 2016’s first quarter.

GDPNow April 16

It’s the same story pretty much everywhere else. Japan, for instance:

Japan GDP April 16

Now the question becomes, how does the US and the rest of the world “grow out of its debt” if it can’t grow at all? Won’t the steady accretion of debt at every level of every society go parabolic in a zero-growth world? The answer is that mathematically speaking, this appears to be unavoidable.

So what will we do? More of the same of course:

OECD Calls for Urgent Increase in Government Spending

(Wall Street Journal) – Governments in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere should take urgent and collective steps to raise their investment spending and deliver a fresh boost to flagging economic growth, the Organization for Economic Growth and Development said Thursday.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Economics in one cheque

Economics in one cheque

checkOn December 1, 2005, Bill 43 “Alberta Resource Rebate Statutes Amendment Act” received Royal Assent in the Alberta Legislature enabling a one-time rebate to be paid to nearly all Albertans residents in Alberta on September 1, 2005 who had filed a 2004 tax return. The refunds were a product of a larger-than-expected surplus generated mostly by high energy revenues. Rebate cheques were sent out in late January 2006.

The $1.4 billion resource rebate program was controversial, with many people arguing that it would be better if government spent the surplus on other priorities: Health, education, post-secondary, infrastructure, social services, etc. Polls at the time revealed a similar number of people in favour of the prosperity cheques as the number opposed.

This program is sometimes used as an example of wasteful government spending. The assertion is that benefits would have been greater if the government had spent $1.4 billion on the priorities above compared to the benefits generated from the estimated 3.5 million cheque recipients each spending $400 as they each saw fit.

Above is the photocopied cheque I was issued. Emulating Bastiat and Hazlitt, this cheque can serve as a focal point economic analysis.

In Alberta, subterranean oil and gas deposits are not privately owned. The provincial government sets the terms and conditions to choreograph development and it fixes royalty rates. The oil sands royalty rate is equal to the greater of: (a) the gross revenue royalty (1% – 9%) for the period, and (b) the royalty percentage (25% – 40%) of net revenue for the period. The royalty percentage of net revenue is also indexed to the price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI). The royalty percentage is 25% when the WTI price is less than or equal to $55/bbl, rising linearly to a maximum of 40% when the price reaches $120/bbl.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Canada’s new deficit plan is trouble

Canada’s new deficit plan is trouble

Justin_Trudeau_supporting_Gerard_Kennedy_1,_rotatedYesterday Federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau announced the projected deficit for 2016-17 is now $18.4 billion. This amount does not include $10.5 billion in new spending promised by the Liberals during the election campaign.   When the budget is delivered in one month’s time it is foreseeable the total deficit could be in excess of $30 billion. During question period Prime Minister Trudeau defended the proposed financial course of action as something the Canadians want and voted for, while the Leader of the Opposition, Rona Ambrose, alleged that increased federal spending will amount to waste. (Ms. Ambrose is likely well aware of the wastefulness of government programs after having served for three years as Minister of Public Works and Government Services. In that role and other portfolios she has held she is not innocent herself of producing and perpetuating waste.)

In their book Free to Choose, Milton and Rose Friedman exposed, among other things, the fallacy of the welfare state and the disappointing nature of all government programs. This is an unavoidable consequence of the spender spending someone else’s money on yet someone else. It is like paying for someone else’s lunch out of an expense account. The spender has little incentive either to economize or to try to get his guest the lunch that he will value most highly. Moreover, as Hayek (1945) explained in the “Use of Knowledge in Society”, spenders do not have and cannot obtain the information necessary to spend money on other peoples’ money on yet other people as effectively as when you spend your own money on yourself. This is the crux of why government spending is so wasteful. Legislators vote to spend someone else’s money. Bureaucrats who administer the spending programs do the spending someone else’s money on yet someone else.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Olduvai IV: Courage
Click on image to read excerpts

Olduvai II: Exodus
Click on image to purchase

Click on image to purchase @ FriesenPress