March 21, 2009

  • Unintended Consequences

    In Europe in the Middle Ages and into the Early Modern period it was often the law or custom that a man who raped a woman was forced to marry her. This law was frequently turned on its head by couples who could not otherwise get married—because of differences in their social status, for example. The man and woman would stage a rape, which would produce a social imperative requiring them to marry.”

     
    Over the next week, the rhetoric surrounding the Obama Budget proposal is going to escalate.  There’s just no escaping it.  But the way your Congressional Representatives vote will have much more to do with the pressure you put on them than anything they say to each other in their dueling press conferences. 
     
    I’d like to point out a couple of things in hope that maybe you will be encouraged to contact the Representative and Senator from your district and offer your opinion.  First, there are unintended consequences to every action.  The bigger the action, the greater the consequence.  Past actions and inactions on the part of our government have contributed greatly to the current economic crisis.  The wrong actions now will make it much much worse.
     
    By the way, my son asked the other day, “What is economics anyway …” and I found that off the top of my head it was surprisingly difficult to answer him.  I wanted to talk about money, resources, labor and profit.  But it’s much simpler than that.  Economics is the science of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.  The economy is not about “money”, money is a tool used by the economy to make the transfer of goods and services easier.  Which makes all the current conversation kind of weird because we keep talking about the problem as though money is the economy. 
     
    We are indeed having a money problem though.  For a more thorough discussion of our monetary and banking system, please see my previous blog “Lives in the Balance”.  And we aren’t just having a money problem, we are also having a problem of reaction to the problem.  It’s the old horse versus barn-door paradigm.  (If you agree with me now, you can skip straight to the end, recommend me to all your friends and just leave me a great comment.  If you don’t know what I’m talking about, hang in there for the long version.)
     
    Four years ago, monetary agents were lending money to each other, to companies, to consumers, and borrowing from foreign entities to make that happen.  We as a nation and an economy were encouraged in this behavior by a philosophy developed and articulated by Ayn Rand called Egosim.  She was a free-market prophet who declared that any state interference in the affairs of “the producers” is not just good economic policy (a debatable proposition at best) but an immoral act designed to prevent the capable from fully realizing the fruits of their labors while breeding a class of leeches who subsist on the ill-gotten largesse which the government has stolen from the aforementioned Producers.  Alan Greenspan was a friend and student of the late Ms. Rand and has publicly proclaimed his allegiance to her ideas since his first public appointment.
     
    He believed in and wrote policy to support a “supply side” economy.  From this philosophical perspective arose such cloying cliches as “a rising tide lifts all boats”.
     
    Ms. Rand’s position was that given free-rein, the Producers would create better, more efficient, more effective and less expensive products.  Government regulation would lead to inefficiency and waste.  Her magnum opus “Atlas Shrugged” makes this point vividly as the poor beleaguered capitalists are forced into less and less sustainable positions until they are finally convinced that they’ve lost the war.  The book ends with the hero flying West to Colorado to the last enclave of free-market culture where all the great men have fled to produce for themselves alone and to enjoy an unfettered life.  Beneath the wings of the jet, the lights literally go out as the electric grid fails and all the land is swallowed in literal and figurative darkness. 
     
    So we’ve had 30 years of economic policy designed to avoid that scenario.  Has it produced the intended result?
     
    In actual fact, Producers are no more immune to stupidity, shortsightedness, and greed than anyone else.   Instead of creating products that are better, cheaper, more efficient, and more durable, we’ve seen entire industries push the “planned obsolescence” envelope until consumers are willing to accept that the products we buy will be outdated within a few months and unsupported within a year or two.  Remember the Maytag repairman of the old commercials?  What company can you think of today that’s actively marketing it’s products as “built to last?”  What car company today is producing vehicles that get better gas mileage than the ones that rolled off the line in the 80′s?
     
    Advertisers have designed clever campaigns to convince us that we need newer, brighter, shinier, things that our grandparents would have slapped us for buying.  New _______, again?  What’s wrong with the old ones?  
     
    And as a group, we’ve been complicit in all this materialistic frenzy.  Oh, maybe not you personally, but well, yeah, probably you too because it’s pretty damn hard to live in America without thinking that I NEED something that I no more need than I need a hole in my head.  And if I’m in that boat, I’m pretty sure I’m not alone because I’ve been frugal from years before it got to be cool to be frugal.  The bottom line of all this is that our consumer debt in 2007 hit 100% of our gross domestic product.  It took from the Great Depression until the 1980′s for consumer debt to exceed 50% of GDP, but we have gone and shot the moon, baby. 
     
    You know what that means?  There is no money left in the pocket of the consumer to spend.  All the economic gurus tell us that the way to get out of a Recession is to Spend.  But I really must repeat it again since there appear to be so many politicians and talking heads who didn’t get the memo, consumer debt exceeds our Gross Domestic Product.  We don’t HAVE anything left to spend. 
     
    Now, I want to be transparent about something else before I come down to the end of this writing.  Ten years ago, five years ago, I was worried about the size of our national debt.  I thought it was a moral outrage and I couldn’t believe that no one seemed to care.  I remember a particular conversation with a very good friend (Republican at the time but has since transferred to the dark-side as a registered Independent), in which I argued passionately that the National Debt was out of control.  My otherwise responsible friend quoted to me as the concluding argument a line that came straight from Greenspan, “debt is not a problem because our economy is growing, and it will continue to grow for all the foreseeable future. We’ll grow our way out of this debt.” 
     
    The two problems with that line of thinking were that 1) it REQUIRED unabated growth and 2) it REQUIRED no increase in debt.  You’ll never outgrow something if you can stretch it to fit at each new size.    But as I said, my friend has since seen the light so clearly that I haven’t even been tempted to go back and say, “I told you so.”
     
    Now that we are in trouble, I’m hearing absolutely unbelievable calls for “fiscal restraint”.  People who had no problem with government spending five years ago have suddenly found religion, only now the times are different and they are dead wrong.
     
    The only way out of this mess is to spend, and the only place left for the money to come from is the government.  Private investment is dead.  Consumer spending is dead.  That only leaves government spending. 
     
    I don’t want you to think I’m exaggerating, but I’m afraid some of you won’t believe this next statement unless you go look it up for yourself, so I implore you to go, look it up.  The ONLY markets functioning today are those being guaranteed by the government.  If government spending stops, even those markets can’t function.
     
    It’s too late to lock the barn door, the horse is out.  The only way to get the horse back in is to keep the doors open!  It’s way past the time for a “jump-start”, pumping a few hundred dollars into the pockets of taxpayers isn’t gonna do it.  It’s way too late to tell banks to “shore up their capital position” (let me translate that for you, the newly energized regulatory agencies have been telling banks that they are increasing the capital requirement - banks are being required to hold MORE MONEY IN RESERVE! – you cannot LEND more if you are being required by regulators to RESERVE more.)  Sorry for shouting, <deep breath>.’
     
    The time to increase reserves was about 7 years ago when the markets started going off the charts.  That’s the same kind of common sense as “buy low, sell high” but although it’s easy to understand on paper, it’s hard to do in real life.  Instead of telling banks back then that they needed to increase their reserves, they lowered the capital requirement on the five largest banks and the actions that followed brought the unintended consequence of a broken economy.  
     
    Losers panic and sell low or get carried away and buy when things are at their peak.  Decreasing capital reserves in 2003 was like waiting until a certain attractive stock hit $800 a share and then deciding to buy.  Increasing the capital reserves now is like holding that $800 stock until the price drops to $3 and then selling it.  
     
    The unintended consequences of restraint now are pretty clear to see if you’re one of the little guys who was already struggling back when the people calling for restraint were telling us that the crisis was all in our heads and that we were just a nation of whiners.  Distressed banks forced to raise their capital requirements become insolvent banks with the stroke of a regulator’s pen.  An economy that’s barely limping along on Federal guarantees becomes “road pizza” (Tucker’s phrase) if the spending stops. 
     
    If you have never done it before, I urge you to use your Internet Savvy skills and find the web address where you can email your Congressman and tell him or her, “Please don’t fall for the rhetoric.  Now is not the time for the government to stop spending.”  And even more than that, if you are the kind of person who already has your Congressial Rep on speed-dial, I strongly urge you to find one person in your life who hasn’t been politically active and ask THAT person to please make a call or send an email.  We need to speak loud enough to be heard over the roar that’s been created in and around Washington by the sound of the voices of people who love to hear the sound of their own voice but are saying utter nonsense.   
     
    If in our current climate government spending stops, or even slows down, we’re all going to get a front row seat to a new show in town called “What Made the Depression Great.”
     
     

Comments (17)

  • You so need a column in your local news outlet!  You should be an econ professor!  Very impressive and clear and I have a degree in Econ and two sons, one in the mortgage business and another in banking.  They like you post!  Cheers

  • I absolutely agree with “vexations”  why are you only posting this on xanga?  Did you submit to Time yet?  Another great explanation.

  • I agree with Vex. You articulate and clarify the bricka bracka of the economic situation on so many levels. Not just the situation, but you teach here. Thank you. We are lucky to have you here.

  • Great analysis and I agree with Vex that you need a column of your own.  You are a thoughtful and informed voice that speaks volumes where so much of what fills our print and airwaves is vapid.

    Bravo!

  • As always your post is well-written but I disagree completely with the implication that we’ve had 30 years of Rand-based economic policies.  Naturally I disagree with your conclusions as well, but only because I’m a libertarian, and such a Rand fan.  :)  Though, admittedly, a fan of diluted Rand.  Still, I’ll take Rand over Marx or (quelle horror!) Stalin any day of the week.  Don’t look now, but there are some small indications that the economy is recovering, even before the government has gone on another massive spending spree.

  • Great write clear and concise as always. Thanks Judi

  • I disagree on many points. You are making mistakes in your thinking…just awful. I wish you wrote shorter entries and I could explain how.

  • @tjordanm - an alternative viewpoint is always welcome here.  If I’ve made a mistake, please feel free to say what it is.  I’m certain of the facts I quoted above, so I presume you are saying that I’ve drawn an incorrect conclusion?  I’d be interested to hear in what way you think I’ve gone astray.

    Regards

  • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/24/open-for-questions-obama_n_178764.html

    One of the things we should be asking them is WHY don’t the gov’t put the post office in charge of opening the credit markets…unlike the banking industry THEY would give out low interest loans & mortgages as well as reasonably priced credit cards

  • What you say does make a lot of sense.  We are in such a mess, one always wonders what will come next.

  • I’ll write to you about Greenspan, specifically. I think a correction is in order.

  • I also have to disagree on your philosophy of increased or continued spending. People, not govornment drive an economy, people with needs and wants who, collectively and using their individaul skills to produce and provide goods and services.

    The means the govornment utilizes to generate finances, through a patchy and punative tax system, fines, levees, permits and fees can not reverse or even stall this megaeconomic downturn. The problem lies in three basic teirs of social misconceptions.

    First, that everyone deserves “things”. Contrary, although we would like to see every child fed and clothed, every citizen housed and educated, if these citizens do not contribute to society then the burden of supporting these masses will crush the very foundation and infrastructure it took generations of sweat, blood and tears to build.

    Second, that kindness, generosity and charity are to be extracted from those who have suceeded in building their wealth. These things must be given voluntarily or those who have been blessed. with these assests will conceal them and make them even less accessable.

    Third, that family and social values have taken a back seat to individualism and self gratification. While it is true that rugid individualism and individual strength and perseverance have made the civilization we dwell in today as remarkable as it is, it is not without these individuals cooperating with each other and working towards common goals that these things have been accomplished.

    Govornments extract a percentage of our assests, as they well should, in order to maintan for the general defense, health and security of their nation, to provide a safe and reliable infrastructure and to compensate  citizens for their good and usefull contributions.

    When the govornment of our generation oversteps these boundries we end up deeper indebted to our forefathers and placing and undue burden on our children’s children.

    The only solution which will eventually work itself through is, to produce what is necessary and reduce consumption, until such a time when the natural cycle of growth returns, which it will. The govornment will continue to spend, no doubt, but there needs to be prudent and careful consideration over what is necessary spending and that which is a futile and frivolous attempt to halt the prdictable inevitable downward turn of our global economy.

    >…< Thank you for this opportunity, and allowing me to express my opinion!

  • i try to read your blog…but there are so many words!!!  a spazzz can’t sit still tha long!!!

    love ya!

  • Amazingly SOMEBODY’s listening to me

    http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=4034396

    i ahd initiailly thought that the melddown was a result of what Goerge the First rightfully called “voodoo economics,” but now i remember that when i first read Rand’s books the frist thing i thought was THIS is Reaganomics!!!

  • ok, so this comment has nothing to do with politics. I am forced to watch Fox News at least two hours a day…my husband lives for that stuff, so instead, I’m going to say that your haircut is so totally cute in your profile picture. -Kate

  • How are you? Judi

  • I’ve been by your blog occasionally, but forgot to scroll down and read this treatise, which reminds me of what drew me to you in the first place.  You are one fine writer, plus, you think good.  (Translation:  I agree with you.)

    And I loved your gracious response to tjordanm.  You’re who I want to be when I grow up.

    And speaking of this entry, and of my concern for your well-being, since you haven’t posted in so long, I guess the good thing is that this entry is still easily viewable, which it wouldn’t be if you’d covered it up with a lot of more recent entries.  But I still worry about you.  Are you OK?

Post a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *