Thursday, March 12, 2015

What Is the Burden of Federal Debt?

"We owe it to ourselves" was the common refrain that I heard from my professors as an undergraduate and graduate student about federal debt. Here are some questions that might help clear up whether growing federal debt is a serious problem.
  1. Does outstanding federal debt ever have to be repaid?
  2. If federal debt were repaid, who would do the paying, and who would receive the payment?
  3. If federal debt does not have to be repaid, the U.S. Treasury still has to pay interest to whoever holds Treasury bills and bonds.  What are the economic implications of interest on the debt?  Who bears the burden of paying the interest and who benefits from receiving those interest payments?
So far, federal debt has not been repaid.  In fact, federal debt has been growing for decades.  You and I could not continuously expand our debt, but the U.S. Treasury is different.  Because Congress can tax and because the Fed can create new money, the U.S. Treasury has a much larger capacity to repay debt (if it had to) and to pay interest on outstanding debt (which it must do to avoid default).  As long as the real economy continues to grow, federal debt does not have to be repaid, and it seems quite unlikely at present that all federal debt will ever be retired by repayment of principal.

If federal debt were repaid, repayment could come from only two possible sources: (1) taxes collected in excess of federal spending and (2) money creation.  If taxes in excess of federal spending were the case (a federal budget surplus), tax payers would be the payers and holders of maturing Treasury bonds would be the recipients.  I pay taxes, but I don’t own much in the way of Treasury bonds, so I guess I would be a payer, not a receiver.  How about you?

If federal debt does not have to be repaid, the Treasury still has to pay interest on outstanding debt.  Interest on outstanding debt can be paid from one of three sources: (1) taxes collected in excess of federal spending, (2) money creation, and (3) additional debt.  Obviously, people who own Treasury bonds are the beneficiaries of interest payments.  It isn’t obvious at all who bears the burden of making those interest payments.

Tax payers are not currently bearing a burden to pay interest on outstanding federal debt, because federal spending continues to exceed tax collections.  That fact means that interest is paid through money creation (when the Fed buys U.S. Treasuries) and by issuing additional debt, which expands outstanding debt, of course. 

The real burden of federal debt is the value forgone by using scarce resources in ways they would not have been used, aside from the government’s borrowing.  If government’s use of those scarce resources also creates value, then what we are getting is a transfer of value from Bobby to Annie, with maybe a net loss and maybe a net gain.  Transfers of value from one person to another cannot be objectively measured to see if we got a net gain.

If government’s use of scarce resources did not create value for anyone, but nonetheless caused a loss of value for someone, we end up with inefficiency and a net loss.  But most government spending benefits someone, somehow, and once again, because interpersonal comparisons of value are not really possible, we are hard pressed to say much more.

If government control of scarce resources diverts resources away from production of capital goods that would otherwise have occurred, it is possible that growth of the real economy could be retarded.  If growth of the real economy is retarded, that reduces future consumption opportunities below what they otherwise could have been.  Economists who study this phenomenon have been unable to reach what everyone takes to be conclusive, persuasive evidence about this issue.  In other words, no one has been able to persuade lots of economists one way or the other about whether government control of scarce resources has retarded growth of the economy, although any number of economists make statements about it one way or the other.

The expression “we owe it to ourselves” is pretty silly, really.  Some part of federal debt (about 40%) is debt held by private citizens of America.  Interest payments on that internal net debt amounts to a transfer of purchasing power to the owners of that debt.  Although the payers of that interest are Americans, as are the recipients of those interest payments, “we” are not “ourselves.”  In other words, growing federal debt means growing transfer of purchasing power over goods and services to people who lend to the federal government.  So, even internally held federal debt may pose some issues about which people will have normative opinions. 

For that part of federal debt that is held externally (by Japanese citizens in large measure, and by other citizens of the rest of the world), interest payments on U.S. federal debt enlarge their consumption opportunities.  But it is far from clear that those interest payments reduce the consumption opportunities of Americans.  The evidence so far is that the standard of living of nearly all Americans continues to rise.

So, should we worry about growing federal debt?  Yes, if the real rate of growth of our economy is retarded, and no, if it is not.  I am persuaded that we do not really know, but nearly everyone has a normative opinion about the wisdom or stupidity (whichever it is) about growing federal debt.   

Friday, January 23, 2015

Whither the Welfare State?

Here, George Will provides an accurate and succinct description of the growth of the welfare state in America over the past three or four decades.  As usual, Mr. Will gets it right and offers entirely thoughtful comments.

Unless I misread his intent, Mr. Will is less than happy about the growth of transfer payments now received evermore broadly by Americans who would not be considered "needy."  Although I rarely find myself at odds with the ideas of George Will, I will offer a different perspective for explaining continuing growth in the welfare state in America and in other developed countries of the world.

The American economy continues to grow at a modest pace (about 2% per year over the long haul), which is far more impressive than pundits seem to think.  Our GDP weighs in at about $17 trillion per year, which is really a huge economy.  China is second at about $9 trillion per year.  Japan is third these days at about $5 trillion per year.

Even a small rate of growth for something as large as the American economy generates impressive gains in income per household.  Two percent of $17 trillion is about $340 billion.  If that $340 billion were divided equally among the approximately 118 million households in America, just 2% growth in GDP per year would bring an additional $2,800 per year to each household.  Or, examined on a 10-year period (which government types are fond of doing), a $31,500 increase in household income over the 10-year period, accounting for compound growth.

Of course, annual gains in GDP are not earned equally across all 118 million American households.  The widening gap between annual income of the top quartile and the bottom quartile of households in America is frequently the topic for hand wringing by those who call themselves progressives.

Mr. Will writes in his essay,
"America’s national character will have to be changed if progressives are going to implement their agenda. So, changing social norms is the progressive agenda."  
He is correct, of course.  But I propose that we all might as well get used to a sea change in America's national character and its social norms.  Let me explain.

In a word, "technology."  The widening income gap between the top and bottom of the statistical income distribution in the United States (and in other developed countries) is pretty much a direct result of advances in technology, in my judgment.

People who own income streams generated by creating technological advances (e.g., Bill Gates), or by owning income streams generated by astute use of technology (e.g., many IT employees across the nation), enjoy high and rising income.  People who own only their labor, made evermore obsolete by advancing technology, suffer from low and falling income.  Hence, the expanding income gap between those who benefit from advancing technology and those who don't.

Tyler Cowan has written a book Average is Over: Powering America Beyond the Age of the Great Stagnation   that explores many implications of the truth that advancing technology is making common labor obsolete for production of goods and services in our economy.  But people who own nothing other than common labor services must somehow keep body and soul together.

The answer is not "work harder," as any number of pundits on the right are wont to expound.  Nor is the answer "get more education," as any number of politicians and academicians have advised.  The simple truth is that an ever-rising number of people are not now capable of and will not become capable of inventing advanced technology, or becoming astute users of advanced technology.

Advancing technology makes it ever more possible to produce greater quantities and better qualities of goods and services with less human labor.  In the United States, our creation and use of advancing technology has already enabled us to transfer about 14% of annual GDP from people who earn it to people who did not earn it each year.  Although many lament such expansive transfer payments, the amazing thing is that it is possible to make such transfers while the standard of living for the payers of those transfers continues to rise!

Think for a minute of all the people who have jobs that literally could be done without.  I can easily think of tens of people I know whose job falls into that category.  Even what I do, which is teach economics and finance to college students, is quick on its way to falling into that category!  Yes, even college teachers will be replaced in the fullness of time with advanced technology.

On the one hand, advancing technology that permits a rising standard of living for everyone on the planet is a good thing.  On the other hand, most of us will not be inventors of that technology, nor will we be astute users of it, which means that most of us will have declining work-based claims on goods and services as technology continues to advance.  Yet, we will still want to eat, be clothed, be sheltered, and enjoy life.

Yes indeed, America's national character and social norms will definitely have to change.  They have been changing for decades, and they will continue to change.  The challenge we and other developed countries around the globe face is how to live in a world of abundance --- a world in which advancing technology makes it possible for an ever-growing percentage of GDP to be transferred from those whose current job generated it to those who either have no job or who have a job that is unnecessary for generating goods and services.

In my own insignificant corner of the world, I continue to add value by what I do because I have been an early adopter of computer technology throughout my teaching career.  I became certified in online teaching, for example.  I am a fairly astute user of technology.  But, still, I am not safe.  I can foresee the day when what I do will be unnecessary, due to a combination of clever computing and clever computer programming.  Call it a fairly meager advance toward artificial intelligence, which I think is not far off.

In a world of abundance --- a world in which scarcity of resources has been greatly attenuated --- we face a disconnect between work, income, and wealth.  I grew up in an era when hard work and education led to higher income.  I grew up in an era when social norms required attention to being a productive member of society.  I grew up in an era when national character and social norms dictated that those who would not work hard and obtain an education should not earn much income.

But what is one to do when what one can do has little productive value?  Which of you reading this essay is capable of inventing advanced technology?  Which of you is capable of even using advanced technology astutely?  And what of technology that is literally just around the corner that we cannot yet even imagine.  If you doubt that advancing technology is likely to be the rule, all you need to do is think about the technological advances that have occurred in just the most recent 50 years. David Hume was right in noting that the future is under no obligation to repeat the past.  Still, I think the future of advancing technology will be very much like its recent past.

Technology is advancing at an advancing rate.  It's not even linear; it's exponential.  Advancing technology is not a bad thing; it is a good thing.  But we humans will have to figure out a way for the fruits of advancing technology to benefit all of humanity, not just the inventors and the astute users.

I will close this essay with an analogy, one that some readers may find offensive, although no offense is intended.  My dogs have limited intellectual capacity,  even though they appear to have unlimited willingness to please.  No amount of hard work or eduction will enable my dogs to learn algebra.  If the material well-being of my dogs somehow depended on their learning algebra, they would be toast.

I submit that George Will and any number of others who lament rising transfer payments in America and around the world may as well get used to a continuing rise.  How else will the masses keep body and soul together?  How else will most of us enjoy the rising abundance of real goods and services available to humanity?

I confess that I have no good answers to the questions I just posed.  But I think they are questions we must grapple with out in the open, because I absolutely believe that technology will continue to mitigate the ravages of scarce resources.  I invite economists around the world to quit talking about scarcity and get on to the challenging business of creating economic theories that embrace abundance and the problems of income distribution in the face of rising abundance --- abundance that is the result of a very small number of persons, compared to the population of earth.

I am a confirmed classical liberal, as readers of EconoBlast have surely noticed. I believe fervently in individual liberty.  My recently published book, Morality and Capitalism, is a testament to that fact. When I note that transfer payments in the United States will be an ever-rising proportion of GDP, it is not because I favor the progressive policies of the current federal administration.  I have not lost my way, but the path is getting harder to see.

Sunday, December 7, 2014

Why Is the Federal Budget Chronically in Deficit?

    The federal government budget of the United States is chronically in deficit.  Almost unimaginably, the federal deficit topped $1 trillion in each of the years 2009-2012.  Total federal debt tops $17 trillion.  Promised federal spending for Social Security and Medicare exceeds projected tax collections by more than $100 trillion!  Since 1940, the federal budget was not in deficit in only eight years.  And in those years of surplus, highly questionable accounting was usually involved.

1)  Why is the federal budget typically in deficit?
2)  What are the real costs and consequences of federal budget deficits?
3)  What could be done to stop systematic deficits and ever-expanding federal debt?

     Democracy, combined with the political institution of majority rule (let's call it MRD for short), has a built-in flaw.  Under MRD, small minorities with much to gain get their way against large majorities with only a little to lose.  The problem is large, concentrated benefits combined with small, dispersed costs.  For example, wheat farmers in Kansas, who each have thousands of dollars in benefits to gain from a wheat price support program, will lobby loud and long for the program, but each of the rest of us, who each have only pennies to lose if wheat support programs become law, will scarcely pay attention at all.  Each of the rest of us won't spend our scarce time and money to fight the farm bill handout to wheat farmers, funded by federal expenditures.  And so it goes with every special interest. 
     Politicians prosper and get reelected by handing out benefits to supporters who finance campaigns.  A wheat farmer in Kansas has every incentive to donate $1,000 to reelect a politician who will vote for wheat price support.  Each of the rest of us are quite unwilling to donate $1,000 to elect a politician who will vote against the program. 

     Politicians also prosper and get reelected by voting for laws and policies that produce highly visible short run benefits, but generate costs that are mostly invisible, dispersed across millions of citizens, and deferred to the distant future.  The most obvious and largest examples of this phenomenon is Medicare and the evolving PPACA (a.k.a., Obamacare). 

     Federal expenditures can be financed in just three ways: taxes, borrowing, and money creation.  Politicians' propensity to favor borrowing and money creation is no mystery.  By the way, borrowing is deferred taxes; money creation is the most insidious, least visible, and most widely dispersed form of taxing.  Pernicious and growing federal debt—in America and around the world—really poses no mystery at all.

     The real costs and consequences of ever-rising federal debt are ever-growing command of scarce resources by a small number of politicians instead of by a large number of private individuals.  In EconoBlast, we have often discussed how voluntary exchange (a.k.a., free markets), generate prosperity and social coordination.  We have also learned how centralized control of scarce resources generates concentrated benefits, dispersed costs, and prosperity for special interest minorities. 

     Systematic federal deficits and ever-expanding federal debt could be stopped.  I offer four proposals that would end the problem.  First, the political institution of MRD could be replaced with SMRD—super majority rule democracy.  SMRD would require that no law could be passed by Congress without a 4/5ths majority.  Second, we could prohibit individuals from serving more than a single term in Congress.  Third, we could give Congress a budget constraint, stipulating that the federal government cannot spend more than 20% of the average of the most recent three years nominal GDP. Fourth, we could end creation of new money under the direction of just seven people—the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, replacing discretionary monetary policy with a money growth rule.

      With SMRD, very few if any laws could be passed that concentrate benefits on small minorities, but disperse costs across the rest of us.  With single-term members of Congress, special interest groups would lose their incentive to finance campaigns for politicians who promise to butter the bread of the special interest group.  With a federal budget constraint tied to GDP, politicians would have to make choices about how to spend tax dollars, instead of deferring taxes with debt and money creation.  Finally, with a monetary growth rule, the growth rate of the money supply would be limited to a rate that makes inflation impossible and promotes wide-spread social cooperation based on knowledge instead of deception.

     If we the people do not have the persistence to insist on fundamental changes, such as the four proposed above, we should stop complaining and just get used to federal deficit spending with no end in sight.  Each and everyone of us can enforce term limits simply by not voting for an incumbent politician, regardless of who it is.  It's a start.  

     The other three fundamental changes I propose would require the help of Congress, and perhaps even constitutional amendments.  But politicians who will serve but a single term might just become statesmen, instead of career practitioners of cronyism.  It's worth a try. 

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Minimum Wage Again? You Must Be Kidding

Below is a reprint of an article that appeared originally in the Austin Business Journal, way back in 1995.  Later, in 2007, I updated the article, because the drums were beating yet again to raise the minimum wage.  Unbelievably, here we are once again with the President pushing an increase in the minimum wage.

Raising the Minimum Wage:  Who Benefits, Who Loses?

by David L. Kendall
January 26, 2007

In 1964 I turned 15 and landed my first real summer job washing dishes in a restaurant.  Somehow, I got the job over several others who also wanted it.  My first wage was 80¢ an hour—45¢ below the $1.25 federal minimum wage that year.
It might take an army of lawyers to figure out whether my employer was breaking federal law by not paying me minimum wage.  But legal or not, I was thrilled to work for 80¢ an hour.  That summer I learned a lot about holding a job, personal responsibility, and forgoing summer fun with my friends.  I even got a raise to 90¢ an hour after the first month.  More important, I earned about $385 over the summer, an enormous sum for me at the time.
Franklin D. Roosevelt sponsored the first federal minimum wage legislation with the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1937.  The Supreme Court declared that act unconstitutional.  But undeterred, one year later Congress legislated a federal minimum wage of 25¢ an hour in the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The 1938 act covered wage earners only in industries involved in interstate commerce.  But over the years, Congress amended the law to increase the federal minimum wage and to extend its reach.  Federal minimum wage law now applies to about 70 percent of the work force. 

The drums are beating again in Washington to raise the federal minimum wage from its current level of $5.15 per hour to $7.25.  With House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi as chief drummer, several legislators and pundits are claiming the moral high ground for wanting to raise the federal minimum wage.  Supporters argue that $5.15 is not a “living wage,” and therefore, the moral, ethical thing to do is raise it.
But is raising the minimum wage the moral high ground?  Should those who oppose the minimum wage hang their heads in ethical shame?  Who will benefit and who will lose?  A closer look and a little reasoning may be helpful.
Myth Number One—unless forced by law to pay higher wages, businesses will exploit workers, forcing them to accept a low wage.  The truth is that fewer than 7 million workers—about 5 percent of the workforce—received wages below $7.25 in 2005.  Conclusion:  most wage earners receive wages higher than minimum wage, even though no law requires it.
Employers are willing to pay more than minimum wage because they are in business to earn profit.  Just as most people are willing to pay costs to earn income—transportation, lunch, and day care expenses, for example—businesses are willing to pay costs to earn income too.  In fact, businesses are willing to pay workers whatever wage will maximize profits. 

But willing or not, employers are not able to pay workers more than they’re worth.  The wage workers are worth per hour in business depends on the value of goods or services they produce, and how much they are able to produce each hour.  Fortunately, a huge majority of workers in America produce goods or services each hour that can be sold for far more than minimum wage.
My employer during the summer of 1964 was a good, kind man.  But he was also in business for a living.  Owning and running a restaurant was how he and his family earned their income.  Like any other business—small or large—he had to cover all his costs of doing business, including a profit for his family’s income.  Otherwise, he would soon have been out of business.  He paid me what I was worth that summer.  Had he been forced to pay me minimum wage, the cost to his business would have been about $600 for the summer instead of $385.  Would he have hired me if the law had required him to pay me more than I was worth?  Plain sense suggests no.

Myth Number Two—minimum wage law helps the poorest, least advantaged workers in society.  Belief in this proposition may explain why so many Americans favor raising the minimum wage.  Much closer to the truth is that the minimum wage helps one set of “have nots” at the expense of another set of even poorer “have nots.”  A simple example helps explain why.

Suppose that a company is now paying $5.15 an hour for 400 hours of labor supplied by 10 workers, each working 40 hours per week.  Suppose also that the business is paying 100 other workers various amounts more than minimum wage.  Raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour would increase this company’s weekly wage bill for the 10 minimum-wage workers from $2,060 to $2,900, an increase of $840. How will the hypothetical business respond?  Let’s consider several options:  (1) raise prices to consumers, (2) accept lower profits, (3) reduce wages of workers who earn more than minimum wage, or (4) lay off some minimum wage workers. 

Most employers have no ability to “pass it on” to consumers.  If businesses could raise their product prices anytime they wished, why wouldn’t they already have used their hypothetical market power to increase profits?  Raising price to consumers, other things unchanged, has a predictable outcome—a drop in sales. Our hypothetical business can ill afford to lose sales.  After all, its weekly costs of doing business are up $840, due to the increase in minimum wage. 

What about accepting lower profits?  This option seems reasonable to some—particularly to people who think “profit” is a four-letter word.  But keep in mind that profit is someone’s income.  Is it any more reasonable to expect employers to accept lower incomes by decree of law than it would be for you or me to accept lower wages or salaries? 

Which brings us to the third option, reducing wages of workers who already earn more than the new $7.25 minimum wage.  Are you and I ready to be one of those workers?  Paying some workers less than they’re worth to allow paying other workers more than they’re worth isn’t really much of an option.  Remember, what a worker is worth has nothing to do with the worker as a human; only that worker’s worth as a producer of goods or services.
That leaves option four.  Our hypothetical company can keep its weekly wage bill from rising by reducing its use of minimum-wage labor by about 116 hours per week.  Which workers would lose their jobs if the company chooses this option?  They will likely be the least skilled, least productive workers.  Arguably, they will also be the poorest, least educated, least advantaged people—those most in need of even a low-paying job—whether it’s a “living wage” or not.  If low income is bad, no income is worse.
How will real companies all across the nation respond to a higher minimum wage?  Companies who can do so will raise prices to consumers, but competition at home and abroad will severely limit that option.  In the short run, business owners may absorb the increased wage bill through profit reductions.  But in the long run, stockholders and entrepreneurs must earn a normal profit or they move their capital resources elsewhere.  In the long run, higher labor costs will not be paid for with reduced profits. 

Wages of workers already earning more than minimum wage will certainly not decline.  Oddly as it may seem, raising the minimum wage tends in the long run to increase wages of skilled, experienced workers.  Faced with a higher minimum wage for unskilled labor, companies demand even more skilled labor.  It’s really just sensible economics.  A higher minimum wage for unskilled labor makes skilled labor relatively cheaper, other things unchanged.  Savvy business owners always want to use more of a productive input that becomes relatively cheaper—and less of inputs that become relatively more expensive.
In the end, once business firms make long-run adjustments to a higher minimum wage, workers who aren’t worth the higher minimum wage to their employers will lose their jobs.  Minimum wage legislation does not and cannot force employers to hire workers who are not worth the legal minimum wage.
Who gains and who loses if Congress raises the minimum wage to $7.25 and hour?  Supporters in Congress clearly gain by doing what appears to be a highly visible “good.”  Some voters like the idea of guaranteeing higher incomes to low income earners.  But the good comes at the expense of others in the labor force who earn even lower incomes.  The losers are generally willing, hardworking people with the poorest educations, the lowest skill levels, and the least ability to help themselves.  Fortunately for Congress, the harm done is evidently out of sight to most Americans.  Better still for Congress, the losers don’t make campaign contributions, and many of them seldom vote.

Workers who lose jobs or cannot find jobs that pay the higher minimum wage will have even poorer choices than they had before the increase.  They may retreat to the welfare rolls, or they may find a job that can legally pay them less than minimum wage.  Most will choose a job—or perhaps two jobs—that pay less than minimum wage, because most are self-respecting, hard working people.  But if unskilled, inexperienced workers cannot get in on the ground floor, it’s even less likely that they will make it to the second floor.
If a higher minimum wage could somehow transfer income from wealthy “haves” to disadvantaged “have nots,” then raising the minimum wage might be defensible on moral, ethical grounds.  At least it would be debatable.  But to use the force of law to take from really poor “have nots” to benefit slightly better off “have nots” may not be what most people would call ethical behavior.  It no doubt depends on how you look at it, but perhaps there is no moral high ground available to supporters of a higher minimum wage.

Saturday, December 7, 2013

Be Happy! The World Is Getting Better

Gloom and doom is just about all we get from the media and most pundits.  Take heart!  The world really is getting better.  Here, in an interview with Russ Roberts,  Joel Mokyr of Northwestern University explains why.

The audio file referenced above will take about an hour to listen to, but it's worth your time.  It's just an ordinary mp3 file, so download it to you smart phone and listen to it while you're commuting.

Monday, December 2, 2013

Fighting Povety in America

Here, Michael Tanner reports a startling fact:

In total, the United States spends nearly $1 trillion every year to fight poverty. That amounts to $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three.
Don't you suppose that just about any poor family of three would be tickled silly to have $61,830 in income per year?  Why don't we just give the poor the money and dispense with the 126 federal welfare programs that currently require bureaucrats to administer?

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Money Illusion

Here, Philipp Bagus offers a crystal clear explanation of how the Fed and other central banks around the world are systematically misleading millions of people to believe that all is well.  All is not well.

By monetizing federal debt (so-called "Quantitative Easing" to the tune of $85 billion per month), the Fed is "papering over" past attempts to borrow something that had not yet been produced and saved (albeit with digital paper instead of real pictures of dead U.S. presidents).

Regular readers of EconoBlast need no reminder of the impossibility of borrowing something that has not actually been produced and saved.  New comers to EconoBlast can read all about it here.

 What does the future hold for Americans who are members of the Baby Boomer generation?  Will the financial claims many of us hold (stocks, bonds, savings accounts, and just plain money) have real purchasing power over the next two or three decades when we Baby Boomers expect to spend those claims on real goods and services?

Sadly, much of the financial wealth we Baby Boomers take ourselves to hold could turn out to be an illusion.  Just as Philipp Bagus reminds us in the article linked above, we cannot consume our financial wealth.  We can consume only real goods and services.

Will our economy produce the real goods and services we Baby Boomers financial claims are supposed to allow us to purchase?  The Fed is doing just about all it can get away with to make that possibility vanishingly small.  Please read the Bagus article linked above.  He's already explained it clearly, so I won't bother repeating his words.

Against all odds, I remain optimistic that our economy will produce the real goods and services necessary to honor the financial claims of Baby Boomers.  I remain optimistic in spite of the misguided policies of the Fed and our federal politicians.

I believe that technology will save us from ourselves, just as it has always done in the past.  Give the audio file you will find here a listen.  Put simply, advancing technology will almost certainly make America's $17 trillion federal debt irrelevant!  That distinct possibility is no excuse for the self-serving actions of the Fed and federal politicians, but it is nice to know.

In the nearby future, the combination of artificial intelligence, nano technology, and technologies not yet heard of will mitigate the scarcity of real goods and services so dramatically that most people living on planet Earth will enjoy a very high standard of living --- without working.

Some people think that not having to work will destroy society.  Other people (like me) do not think so.  Not having to work to keep body and soul together will be wonderful, not a scourge.  Am I just a fool with a dream?  You decide.  Listen to the audio file linked above before you decide. 

Thursday, November 14, 2013

King BHO?

Hot off the Wall Street Journal

White House to Allow Cancelled Health Plans to Continue, Official Says
The White House will allow insurers to continue plans that have been cancelled, a Democratic official said.

The proposal may dissuade Democrats from backing House GOP legislation slated for a Friday vote. President Obama is scheduled to deliver remarks on the health law at 11:35 a.m.

Here's a question.  I thought the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (roll over George Orwell) was an act of Congress.  Since when in America is the President empowered to make up ad hoc provisions of a law at will?

Friday, November 1, 2013

Mendacity Means Lying

Here, Charles Krauthammer pretty much tells it like it is.  ObamaCare (a.k.a. the wildly misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) will not work.  Nearly everyone, except BHO and his throng, have been telling us why for a long time now.

Now that the really bad stuff about Obama Care is kicking in, EconoBlast predicts that it will not be long before the House and the Senate set about making necessary amendments to the empowering legislation for ObamaCare.  Who knows, BHO might even sign an amended law, if the lay of the land under the current legislation starts exploding in his mendacious face.

Nearly everyone understands that our health care system "as is" isn't free-market capitalism.  Nearly everyone understands and agrees that reforms are highly desirable --- nearly everyone except the healthcare insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and the hospital industry, that is.  These three big, rich, and politically powerful industries all stand to wax fat under ObamaCare.  So don't be surprised when these three big, rich, and powerful lobbies resist amending the PPAACA.

Alternatives for reforming our health care system have always been around.  EconoBlast archives offer several (here, here, here, and here).  When the House and the Senate do get around to amending the PPAACA, which they definitely will, with or without BHO in office, here are some principles that could and should guide their work (but likely will not, given the vested interests and political power of the three big, rich, and powerful lobbies).
  1. Health care insurance should be privately purchased by individuals in a nation-wide market of competing companies.  State borders should be absolutely irrelevant.  Think automobile and homeowners insurance.  We should be seeing commercials on TV about how to save 15% on our health care insurance,  just like we see for autos and homes!
  2. Health care insurance should be  INSURANCE, not pre-paid health care packages.  Insurance protects consumers from high-cost, low-probability events (e.g., events like wanting a heart transplant, treating stage-4 cancers, treating survivors of horrible traffic accidents, and the like).  We do not purchase insurance for changing the oil in our cars, cleaning the exterior of our homes, and the like.  We all expect those expenses to come around,  and we expect to pay for them out of pocket.  We should all expect to pay for routine, ordinary, entirely common health care out of our pockets, too.  After all, we pay for our food that way, unless we qualify for food stamps.  Why should health care be different?
  3. Health care insurance should have nothing to do with where people work.  Individuals could and should purchase health care insurance in a national, competitive market that offers a variety of insurance plans that are suitable for each individual household. 

    Sixty-year old people will no doubt choose a policy that does not cover pregnancy.  People with an unusually high risk of breast cancer will no doubt choose a policy that covers treatment for breast cancer.  Insurance plans simply must carry risk-based premiums.  Anyone who understands the insurance principle and actuarial principles knows that anything else is not and cannot be INSURANCE.

    What about people with preexisting conditions, you say?  Preexisting conditions are a special case, and not a particularly large problem, by the way.  If Americans want to subsidize health care for people who have preexisting conditions, that's fine.  Congress can vote means-tested provisions to do so, if We the People want to elect members of Congress to do that.  But preexisting conditions is certainly no reason to embrace the insanity called ObamaCare.

    What about people who can't afford health care insurance, you say?  If Americans want to subsidize health care for people who "can't afford health care insurance", that's fine, too.  Congress can vote means-tested provisions to do so, if We the People want to elect members of Congress to do that.  After all, most of us do want to help people who truly need our help.  But again, people who cannot afford health care insurance is not a particularly large problem.  And again, that problem is certainly no reason to embrace the insanity called ObamaCare.
  4. We could and should be presented with a price list each and every time we want health care.  When is the last time you looked at the menu of prices in your docs office?  Yea, right.  People who don't have to face a price don't really care what the price is.  We don't buy anything else that we consume without wanting to know the price.  Why is health care supposed to be different?  Can't answer that question?  Neither can I.
  5. The supply side of health care simply must become much more competitive.  Not many people know about or talk about the supply-side restrictions our current health care system has built in. 

    Thousands of well-qualified students, graduates with a BS in an appropriate field, who want to go to medical school should not be turned away each and every year for lack of seats in medical schools, as they are today. 

    Yes, medical doctors are usually very smart people.  But so are people who earn a doctorate in tens of other fields like finance, accounting, engineering, and history.  Seats for training in these tens of other fields are not strictly regulated by Congress.  You get the picture, right?

    People with medical training that does not rise to the level of MD should not be prohibited from administering health care that they are well qualified to provide.  Nurses and nurse practitioners can and should be able to provide health care for many ailments and conditions they are currently barred by law from providing.  Pharmacists could and should be allowed to sell us medications and drugs that they certainly know the purpose and safe use for.  Truth be known, most MDs don't have much knowledge about drugs.  They get what they know from pharmaceutical sales reps.  Well trained pharmacists actually understand the information.

    It's fine for MDs to be certified.  Certification is a good practice.  We all like Consumer Reports, right?  Angie's List is a great idea.  But requiring licensing to practice medicine is just a barrier to entry that gives docs market power to limit competition.  Why should practicing medicine be different from practicing accounting?  CPAs are certified.  We go to a CPA when we think it's in our best interest to do so.  We go to a bookkeeper when we think a bookkeeper is all we need.

    If you want to know why health care is so bloody expensive, look to just two really, really important reasons:   (1) supply-side restrictions, and (2) health care expenses paid for Joe by Sally, with no prior knowledge of what the price will be.
  6. Medications, drugs, and medical technology could and should cost just what it costs to manufacture and market them.  Monopolies on pharmaceuticals and medical technology should be banned.

    What about research, you say?  Let's pay for basic research in pharmaceuticals through our taxes.  Let's let our universities compete for dollars to support such research in competitive bidding through the National Institutes of Health.  Most people don't know that academics in research universities are already the driving force behind advances in health care drugs and technology.  Let's get it out in the open explicitly and sharply reduce the price of drugs.

    People who argue that we won't get advances in health care and drugs without patents just don't understand people very well.  The softwares Open Office and Moodle, both open-source software, are two great examples of people creating and maintaining advanced technology simply because they want to; it's what they do.  No patent necessary.  The same is true for medical research and innovation.  It's just what some people do, and they will do it regardless of patents that raise the price of drugs and health care technology.

    Research has shown that being first to market is important for making money with innovations.  Patents just raise the price to consumers and enrich the patent holder.  Is that really what we want in health care?

Additional details could be offered for Congress to consider to amend the PPAACA.  But the suggestions I offer above would get us a really long way down the road toward  meaningful and important health care reform.  ObamaCare will not.  Each day that passes will make that truth ever-more obvious. 

Go ahead.  Write your member of Congress.  But don't be too surprised when all you get back is a form letter from your member's staff that says your member of Congress thanks you and will certainly take your suggestions into consideration.  Don't be too surprised when none of the sensible suggestions offered above don't find their way into the sure-to-be-amended PPAACA.

Friday, October 18, 2013

Our House of Cards

The House and the Senate just added another story to our $17 trillion house of cards.  What that means, of course, is that when the house of cards finally does implode, the cards at the top have farther to fall.

Congress --- the House and the Senate --- proved once again that an unlimited government of men, instead of a limited government bound by law (remember the Constitution?), is dangerous.

Kick the can down the road, goes the metaphor.  And so it goes. Thank goodness Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell were able to save the day yet again!  Congress veered away from the fiscal cliff a few months ago, only to do a U-turn and head straight back toward it at higher speed. 

A government that will not be bound by laws will certainly be bound by men instead.  Our highest leaders' refusal to follow not just the Constitution, but even the rules that Congress itself wrote to govern its own behavior, speaks volumes.

Why am I wasting time this morning writing this pitiful refrain?  I really do not know.