Friday, February 21, 2020

Watch an economic Illiterate give Credit where Credit is not due

A dumbo comes up with a stupid idea, yells it in the echo chamber where it is picked up by one dumbo after another, and before you know it, a chorus of dumbos are echoing the same stupid idea.

This is what happened when David Weinberger picked up an idea put out by Brian Riedl and repeated it, not knowing what he's talking about. Weinberger did so in an article that came under the title: “No, President Obama, You don't Deserve The Credit For Trump's Awesome Economy,” and the subtitle: “Federal spending cannot and will not stimulate the economy. That is one thing from the Recovery Act you can take to the bank.” It was published on February 19, 2020 in The Federalist.

Here is the dumb idea: “Believing that government spending causes growth is like believing that taking a bucket of water from one end of the pool and dumping it into the other causes the overall water level in the pool to rise.” Since I do not know in what context Brian Riedl made that assertion, my critique is not directed at him. But I know the context in which David Weinberger used it, and that's where I have concerns.

First, let me tell you something. When I was teaching––before retiring––I discovered that when handling students in a remedial class, the best way to explain a complex subject, was to begin by defining the key words that will come up when the subject will be discussed in detail ... and go from there. And so, I propose to follow that same approach here.

When people speak of “tight money,” they refer to the central bank (the Fed) making it difficult for businesses and individuals to borrow money. By contrast, when someone remarks that the system is “awash” with liquidity, they mean that the Fed has “flooded” the marketplace with money.

So, the question is this: How and why would the Fed do such a thing? The answer is that the Fed is the source of all moneys. It can print any amount it wants and push it into the economy. It can also suck back any amount it wants and cause a tight money condition. This says that neither the Fed nor the marketplace are a pool of money. The Fed is the creator as well as the destroyer of money, but is not a pool. The economy is the wealth producing engine that uses money to function, but is not a pool. The more that money circulates in the economy and the faster it does, the more goods and services it produces. That's assuming the system is not overloaded with too much money, in which case it will heat up and blow the proverbial fuse.

The Fed interacts with the economy in two ways. One way is initiated by the marketplace when the licensed banks that lend money to businesses and individuals, borrow what they need from the Fed to service their clients. The other way that the Fed interacts with the economy is when it initiates the interaction by buying from or selling to the marketplace, assets such as government or corporate securities.

In the first instance, the Fed controls the appetite of the marketplace to borrow or not to borrow by raising or lowering the interest rates. This is called setting the monetary policy. In the second instance, the Fed allows its balance sheet to expand (when buying assets) or contract (when selling assets) so as to complement or offset what the government is doing with its own fiscal policy.

When the government sees the need to stimulate an economy that is slowing down because it is saturated with goods and services and cannot consume much more, or because something terrible has happened that frightened businesses and the public, causing them to stash their money rather than spend it, John Maynard Keynes has suggested that the government should step in and do the spending by launching a program of public works such as the repair or renewal of the infrastructure.

But from where does the Government get the money? In the not too capitalistic regimes, the government borrows directly from the central bank. In the capitalistic regimes, the government borrows from anybody. But since all moneys are created by the central bank anyway, the net result is that even the capitalist regimes end up borrowing from the central bank. But there is a catch associated with that word “anybody”.

To borrow, the government issues bonds (and short-term treasury bills.) The buyers come from the public and from the business community. Most of the time the average Joe will invest in bonds, money that he saves from working. Very few average Joes will take a “bridge loan” even on a temporary basis to invest in bonds. But when they do, they make sure to pay it back as soon as possible. The reason is that Joe will always pay a higher interest on the money he borrows than he will receive on the money he invests. That's because he is considered a subprime level of client and not a preferred borrower.

As to the preferred borrowers, such as the banks and other financial institutions, they'll borrow from the Fed at an interest rate that is lower than what they will receive from the government bonds. They pocket a huge profit, having lifted not one finger to work for it. They’ll do even better with corporate bonds.

Thus, David Weinberger's assertion that, “Federal spending cannot and will not stimulate the economy,” is ignorant because it is based on a misinformed echo picked up in the echo chamber.