|
With over 2.5 million jobs lost in 2008 and G.D.P. estimates for Q4 projected
to fall at a minus 6% annual rate, all hopes are now pinned on an Obama stimulus
program that could exceed $1 trillion. Are investors hopes well-grounded in
believing a government going further into debt can bring about a sustained
economic recovery? I think not, and here's why:
When a government's revenue falls short of expenditures it issues debt to
pay for the difference. That debt can be sold to the private sector, foreign
investors or monetized by the Fed.
If the debt is sold to the private sector, money is merely transferred from
domestic investors to the government. Moving money from the private to the
public sector usually results in a misallocation of capital. Essentially, this
is a voluntary tax increase, but one that requires a true tax increase in the
future to pay off the debt. All that is accomplished is to decrease the money
available for private investment and to increase the money available for government
redistribution. The result is not improved growth but an increase in government
control over the economy. Since the U.S. consumer does not have adequate savings
at this time, most of the new debt will not be financed from domestic purchases.
If the debt is purchased by foreign entities, you generate an obligation to
pay principal and interest in U.S. dollars which must be eventually sold and
converted into foreign currencies. This puts downward pressure on the dollar
and, hence, upward pressure on inflation. China holds $1.9 trillion in currency
reserves of which about 70% are in U.S. dollars. But China has ginned up its
own $600 billion stimulus package (a much larger percentage of their G.D.P.)
and thus will not likely have the money available to finance our debt to the
same degree as it has in the past. A reduced trade surplus along with pressing
domestic needs to stimulate their own economy leads to the conclusion that
most of our new debt will also not be gobbled up by China.
That leaves the last payment option for Mr. Obama's deficit spending plan
-- inflation, since the Fed will be the primary purchaser of the new debt.
However, an increase in the money supply from today's already robust growth
levels will not bolster productivity or G.D.P. growth. Any new money introduced
into the economy at this juncture should only encourage producers to raise
prices rather than boost output. What our government has still yet to learn
is that throwing more money at a problem is not the solution and substituting
inflation for deflation solves nothing. Economic growth comes from permanently
low taxes, low inflation, savings and naturally-low interest rates. Those conditions
tend to exist only in an economy where government intervention is waning, not
waxing. I remember when government was considered a cancer, not the cure. RIP,
Ronald Reagan.
Amazingly, it seems the man credited along with Reagan for laying the foundation
for our long era of prosperity, Paul Volcker, is effectively no longer with
us, either.
I discuss similar themes in this week's podcast, the Mid-Week
Reality Check.
|