Tag Archives: debt

Why Slow Economic Growth Is So Dangerous

Posted on by
Reply

 

In my last post I said that Donald Trump won the first presidential debate, in spite of his uneven temperament, because he was more correct on the issues.
One of the biggest problems our country faces is slow economic growth, averaging only 2% per year since the end of the Great Recession in June 2009.  This compares with an average rate of growth of 3.5% from 1950 – 2000.
In fact, even the recent job growth we have seen is now leveling off.
capture65Such slow growth is very dangerous long term for many reasons:

  • Massive Debt. Our public debt, on which we pay interest, is now 75% of GDP, the highest it has been since right after WWII. CBO predicts that this percentage will keep getting steadily worse without major policy changes. Faster growth means more tax revenue and therefore smaller annual deficits. It is imperative to put our accumulating debt on a downward path.
  • The Need for More Jobs and Better Paying Jobs. The best way to achieve broad based prosperity, and minimize populist disruption, is to create a tight job market where employers have to compete for employees. This is accomplished by making the economy grow faster.
  • Keeping Ahead of China. In 2009 China’s economy was 1/3 the size of ours; now it is 60% as big. In other words, China will soon surpass us economically if we are unable to grow faster. This would risk losing our worldwide lead in such crucial areas as new technology and financial depth, as well as our superpower status.
  • Reducing Student Loan Debt. The best way we can help former students pay off their college debt is to have good jobs waiting for them when they leave school. The faster our economic growth, the better we can do this.

Conclusion. Both our own individual success in life as well as the overall status of our nation depends upon the availability of opportunity. This is why economic growth is so important and why it is dangerous to let it lag.

Follow me on Twitter
Follow me on Facebook

Who Won the First Presidential Debate?

Posted on by
Reply

 

I want to be as clear as possible that I have not yet endorsed either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump for President and I am not doing so now. Each of them has strengths and weaknesses which I am still weighing:

  • Mrs. Clinton has extensive experience and a steady temperament but her policy prescriptions are unlikely to lead to the faster economic growth needed to boost prosperity.

    capture64

  • Mr. Trump lacks government experience and has a volatile temperament.   However many of his policy proposals make very good sense.

Pre-debate expectations were very low for Mr. Trump, based on his assumed lack of familiarity with many important issues. Nevertheless he showed that he does have a solid understanding of both national and international affairs.  On the three general debate topics:

  • Achieving Prosperity. Mr. Trump was very clear in stating what needs to be done to create more jobs and better paying jobs. He advocates individual tax reform to stimulate more business investment as well as corporate tax reform to encourage multinational companies to bring their foreign earnings back home for reinvestment.
  • America’s Direction. Mr. Trump made several references to our massive national debt of $20 trillion even though he didn’t say what he’ll do about it. He also stated very strongly that he is opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the North American Free Trade Agreement as well. Let’s hope that Mr. Trump’s bluster is just a ploy to improve his bargaining position with other countries.  Otherwise he could set off a major new recession.
  • Securing America. Mr. Trump is very clear on the need to destroy ISIS and to do so as quickly as possible. He believes that our 27 NATO allies should be contributing more towards our mutual defense. He also supports “stop and frisk” police policy as the best way to cut down on crime and violence in our inner cities.

Conclusion. Mr. Trump’s clearly stated views on these major national issues in last night’s debate were very impressive. By establishing so well his qualifications to be president, he won the debate.

Follow me on Twitter 
Follow me on Facebook 

 

Why Medicaid Needs to Be Reformed

Posted on by
4

 

One of the very most serious problems facing our nation is our massive federal debt, now over $13 trillion (the public debt on which we pay interest), or 75% of GDP, the highest since right after WWII, and predicted by the CBO to keep getting worse unless major policy changes are made.
The main contributors to this rising debt are the big three entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. All three need substantial reforms in order to rein in spending.
Today I will discuss Medicaid, based on an excellent analysis performed by the Manhattan Institute’s Oren Cass, “Over-Medicaid-Ed: how Medicaid distorts and dilutes America’s Safety net.”
capture41Consider these pertinent points:

  • Badly designed incentives for Medicaid expansion. Each state sets the size of its Medicaid program and receives matching federal dollars, from $1 to $4, for every dollar spent. States thus have a strong incentive to overinvest in Medicaid, expanding their programs far beyond the point where a marginal dollar of their own spending produces a dollar of value.
  • Health care dominates safety-net spending. During 1975 – 2015, government social spending per person in poverty more than doubled (in constant 2015 dollars) from $11,600 to $23,400. Rising health care expenditures accounted for more than 90% of that increase.

    capture42

  • Medicaid spending in 2012 was 39% higher than if it had remained a constant share of state budgets since 2000. State spending on education and welfare was 9% and 54% lower, respectively.
  • This allocation is an ineffective poverty-fighting strategy. While the majority of government social spending goes to health care, low-income households not enrolled in Medicaid allocate less than 10% of their spending to health care. Studies consistently show little or no positive impact on health outcomes from Medicaid enrollment.
  • How to strengthen America’s safety net. The federal government should consolidate all antipoverty funding streams, including Medicaid, and allow states to design programs and allocate funding to such programs as states see fit.

Conclusion. The above program outlines a way to both improve the effectiveness of social welfare spending and curtail its costs to both states and the federal government. Let’s do it!

Follow me on Twitter
Follow me on Facebook

 

Donald Trump Needs a More Positive Message

Posted on by
Reply

 

As regular readers of my blog posts know, I am not enthusiastic about either of our two main presidential candidates because neither of them has a good grasp of our two biggest economic problems which are:

  • Slow economic growth, averaging just 2% per year since the end of the Great Recession in June 2009. Faster growth would solve or alleviate many other problems, especially by creating more new jobs as well as delivering faster wage growth for all middle- and lower-income workers.
  • Massive debt now at 75% of GDP, the highest it has been since right after WWII, and projected by the Congressional Budget Office to get steadily worse unless big changes are made in spending and tax policies. Such major changes are difficult to make without presidential leadership.

Hillary Clinton promises “equitable” growth but her policy proposals will lead to a big increase in spending (bad idea) on projects of dubious value in speeding up economic growth. Donald Trump would hurt the economy with immigration controls and trade restrictions.  His proposal for lower tax rates (good idea) needs much improvement to avoid increasing annual deficits.
capture40Mr. Trump’s biggest problem, however, is his negative message about life in America today. Yes, we need stronger border security but we don’t need a Fortress America.  As the American Enterprise Institute has just reported, worker satisfaction is greatly improved since 2009 and workers are now much less anxious about job security than just a few years ago.
There is a really good way for Mr. Trump to sound a more positive note.  He could very easily take up the major themes of the Republican House Plan, “A Better Way” for solving America’s major economic problems.
Conclusion. There is an overwhelming desire for change in America, for new leadership which breaks out of the corruption, cronyism and elitism so rampant in Washington DC today.  But Americans are natural optimists and want a leader who can look forward to a bright future for our country.

Follow me on Twitter
Follow me on Facebook

The Economic Damage Caused by Very Low Interest Rates

Posted on by
Reply

 

As is well known, the Federal Reserve’s main tool in responding to the Financial Crisis in 2007 – 2009 has been quantitative easing (to lower long term interest rates) and direct reduction of the Federal Funds Rate (to lower short term interest rates). These measures definitely limited the severity of the Great Recession resulting from the Financial Crisis.  But the recession ended in June 2009, more than seven years ago.
Capture37In the meantime the continuation of such low interest rates is having many detrimental effects such as:

  • Pension funds, both public and private, have become greatly underfunded,  creating crises especially for state and local governments with defined contribution plans.
  • Retirement plans for millions of seniors have been upset by erosion of savings.
  • Inequality has increased as affluent stock owners benefit from the rapid increase of asset prices as investors reach for yield.
  • An immense misallocation of capital towards bond issuers at the expense of small business is taking place.
  • Federal debt is soaring as low interest rates make it much easier for Congress to ignore large budget deficits.
  • The next recession, when it inevitably arrives, will leave the Fed in a bind. The only tools remaining are a new round of quantitative easing (additional bond purchases) and even lower (i.e. negative) interest rates.
  • The Fed’s dual mandate of low unemployment (currently 4.9%) and price stability (low inflation) is being met but is accompanied by anemic GDP growth averaging only 2% since the end of the Great Recession. Such slow economic growth is largely responsible for the populist revolt in the 2016 presidential race.

Conclusion. Monetary policy can only accomplish so much. It is critical for the Fed to wind down its $4.5 trillion balance sheet as its bond holdings mature and to keep raising short term interest rates.  This will force Congress to step up to the plate with the changes in fiscal policy which are needed to stimulate economic growth.

Follow me on Twitter
Follow me on Facebook

The Inherent Instability of Obamacare

Posted on by
Reply

 

The recent announcement by Aetna Insurance Company that it will exit the health insurance market in most of the states where it now operates raises a fundamental question about the stability of the Affordable Care Act. As shown by the following map  from yesterday’s New York Times, it appears that at least five states with 17% of the American population will have only one health insurer to choose from next year.
Capture33As the Wall Street Journal’s Greg Ip points out in a recent article, “the problem isn’t technical or temporary, it is intrinsic to how the law was written”  Specifically:

  • Insurance is supposed to price risk but the ACA changed this. Insurers can no longer charge or exclude coverage for pre-existing conditions, charge men and women different rates, or charge older customers more than three times as much as the young.
  • For example, a 64-year-old consumes six times as much health care as the average 21-year-old. Adhering to the 3-to-1 maximum ratio, the insurer would have to greatly overcharge the 21-year-old than his actual cost and/or greatly undercharge the 64-year-old.
  • The rational response for unsound pricing is for young and healthy customers to stay away and sick, older customers to flock to the exchanges. ACA mechanisms to prevent this type of behavior aren’t working very well.Capture32
  • One example of this is that the ACA exchanges, which provide income-based subsidies for those without employer provided health insurance, are mainly attracting those people just slightly above the poverty line who get the biggest subsidies (see chart).

I have pointed out many times that the cost of health care, especially for the entitlement programs of Medicare and Medicaid, is the fundamental driver of our exploding national debt and therefore must be curtailed.  But now, in addition to the cost problem, we are discovering that the ACA also has a fundamental access problem as well. Big changes are clearly needed in the ACA.  More details later!

Follow me on Twitter
Follow me on Facebook

The Democrats Are Half Right (and Half Wrong!) on the Economy

Posted on by
Reply

 

In my opinion both of the two main presidential candidates have overall poor economic plans.  But at least several major Democratic figures such as Hillary Clinton, the NYT columnist Thomas Friedman, and the economist Larry Summers do understand the importance of economic growth.
In particular, says Mr. Summers, “What is unfortunate is that many (progressives), in their eagerness to focus on fairness, neglect the single most important determinant of almost every aspect of economic performance – the rate of growth of total income, as reflected in the gross domestic product.”
Furthermore,

  • More growth means more employment. For each 1 point increase in adult male employment, the employment of young black men rises by 7%.
  • More growth reduces the need for desperation monetary policies that risk future financial stability.
  • If U.S. growth continues to have a 2% ceiling, it is doubtful if we will achieve any of our major national objectives. If we can boost growth to 3%, interest rates will normalize, middle-class wages will rise faster than inflation, debt burdens will continue to melt away and the power of the American example will be greatly enhanced.
  • The question is not whether business success is desirable. The question is how it can be achieved.

All of the above is very positive on the part of Mr. Summers. But then he adds, “What is needed is more demand for the product of business.  This is the core of the case for policy approaches to raising public investment and increasing workers’ purchasing power.”  In other words Mr. Summers is ignoring that:

  • Our national debt is huge and growing way too fast.
  • Wages are now increasing fairly rapidly which increases demand by itself.

    Capture27

  • Investment in new business structures, equipment and intellectual property has now fallen for three quarters in a row.

    Capture28

Conclusion. The way to achieve the faster rate of growth which Mr. Summers (and almost everyone else) wants is not more public investment but rather more private investment. The House Republicans have a plan to accomplish exactly this.

Follow me on Twitter
Follow me on Facebook

Why We Should Be Deeply Worried about Our National Debt

Posted on by
2

 

My last post is highly critical of the economist and New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, for encouraging massive new deficit spending to stimulate our under-performing economy.
Debt and the slow growth of our economy are the two main topics of this blog which I have now been writing for almost four years.  How to speed up growth is a complicated and highly charged political issue about which reasonable and well informed people can differ.  However avoiding excessive debt is to me a moral issue whose resolution should not be that difficult, at least in a conceptual sense.
Capture2 I have often used the above chart from the Congressional Budget Office to illustrate our debt problem because it clarifies the problem so vividly.  Here are its main features:

  • Our public debt (on which we pay interest), now about $13 trillion, is 75% of GDP, the highest since right after the end of WWII. And it is projected to keep getting steadily worse under current policy.
  • Note the decline in the debt from the end of WWII until about 1980. This doesn’t mean that the debt was actually paid off but rather that it shrank as a percentage of GDP as the economy grew fairly rapidly during this time period.
  • From 1980 – 2008 the debt level fluctuated and increased somewhat but did not get badly out of control.
  • Debt shot up rapidly with the Great Recession and has been continuing to grow ever since.
  • The current GDP of our economy is about $19 trillion. At a current growth rate of 2.1%, this adds $400 billion of GDP per year. This means that a $400 billion deficit for 2016 would stabilize the public debt at 75% of GDP. But our 2016-2017 deficit is projected to be almost $600 billion (and rising). This is not good enough!

Conclusion. In order to begin to shrink the size of the public debt, it is imperative that annual spending deficits be reduced to well below $400 billion per year. This will be difficult for our political process to achieve but it is the only way to avoid a new and much worse financial crisis in the relatively near future.

Follow me on Twitter
Follow me on Facebook

Paul Krugman’s Great Crime: Stealing from Our Nation’s Future

Posted on by
Reply

 

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is perhaps the most ardent Keynesian economist in the U.S. today. Let’s agree that Mr. Krugman is a very intelligent and articulate fellow.  He is a Nobel Prize winner and undoubtedly has made important contributions to economics. But he has the absolutely nutty idea that extreme deficit spending not only doesn’t hurt our economy but can actually be beneficial.  His column, “Time To Borrow”  in yesterday’s NYT is a perfect example of this dangerous idea.
Capture31Here is the essence of his thinking:

  • Our national debt of $19 trillion is just a big scary number. Actually just our public debt alone of $13 trillion (on which we pay interest) is 75% of GDP, the highest since the end of WWII, and is projected (by the CBO) to steadily become much worse.  
  • Federal interest payments are only 1.3% of GDP, low by historical standards. Just lock in repayment with 30-year inflation protected bonds, yielding .64% interest. Okay, suppose we can lock in very low interest payments on our current debt and therefore just borrow away oblivious to total debt for the next 30 years. In 2046 I expect to be gone but my children and grandchildren will still be around. Why should they be stuck with paying off or refinancing our own extravagant debt at likely much higher interest rates?
  • There are pressing infrastructure problems all over the country which need fixing now. For example, in Florida, green slime infests beaches because of failure to upgrade an 80 year old dike. The answer is to let Florida voters decide if they want to issue bonds for this project and pay them off with state tax revenue. Nebraska, for example, has decided to raise its state gas tax by 6 cents/gallon in order to pay for infrastructure upgrades.

 

Conclusion. The U.S. is currently in a huge fiscal bind with massive debt and continuing large annual deficits. It is extremely reckless to continue even current deficit spending, let alone increasing it, for anything less than a true national emergency.  Infrastructure repair, for example, is an important but routine need which should be paid for out of current tax revenue.

Follow me on Twitter
Follow me on Facebook

Amazing! Some Progressives May Actually Understand Economics

Posted on by
Reply

 

I have to constantly remind my readers that I am a non-ideological fiscal conservative. I simply want our national leaders to address our two most serious fiscal and economic problems which are:

  • Massive Debt. Our (public, on which we pay interest) debt is now 75% of GDP, the largest since WWII and steadily getting worse. When interest rates go up, as they surely will before long, interest payments on the debt will increase by hundreds of billions of dollars per year and become a huge drain on the federal budget, eventually leading to a new financial crisis, much worse than the last one.
  • Slow Economic Growth. The economy has grown at the average rate of only 2.1% since the end of the Great Recession in June 2009. Such slow growth means fewer new jobs for the unemployed and underemployed and smaller raises for all workers.

My last several posts, here and here have pointed out that neither of our two main presidential candidates is adequately addressing these issues.  Both of them claim that they want faster growth but their policy proposals will just make our humongous debt even worse.
Capture31So I was quite surprised by a column in yesterday’s New York Times by Thomas Friedman, “How Clinton could knock Trump out,” trying to “push Clinton to inject some capitalism into her economic plan.”  Says Mr. Friedman:

  • Clinton could be reaching out to center-right (and anti-Trump) Republicans with a real pro-growth, start-up, deregulation, entrepreneurship agenda.
  • If Clinton wins, she will need to get stuff done, not just give stuff away.
  • The concerns of the Sanders supporters with fairness and inequality can only be addressed with economic growth; the rising anti-immigration sentiments can be defused only with economic growth; the general anxiety feeding Trumpism can be eased only with economic growth.

Conclusion. I am pleased to hear such sensible thoughts from one of the leading columnists of the NYT. If Clinton wins the election (as I expect) and if the Republicans continue to hold the House of Representatives (as I fervently hope), there could be much common ground for constructing an intelligent agenda going forward.

Follow me on Twitter 
Follow me on Facebook