From National Journal:

This is the worst-case scenario from Europe, and it just might come true: Italy defaults on its debts. Every major Italian bank collapses. Recession grips the eurozone. Sovereign defaults and bank failures ripple across the Continent. Saddled with bad loans to nations and lenders in Europe, American banks hemorrhage cash. Credit freezes in the United States. Multinational companies, unable to raise money, curb U.S. investment and hiring. Wall Street demands, but fails to get, new bailouts. The entire developed world plummets into recession and, quite possibly, depression.

This, in contrast, is the placid warning that President Obama gave Americans about the threat: “If Europe is contracting,” he said on Monday, “then it’s much more difficult for us to create good jobs here at home.” There’s still a chance that Europeans, through some combination of fiscal and monetary action, can stop the crisis before it shatters the feeble U.S. recovery. But the worst case is so much worse than Obama’s description, and Washington has failed to prepare voters for the possibility. “The [potential] shock we’re talking about is of very large magnitude,” says Viral Acharya, a New York University professor who studies financial risk extensively. “If you’re just having an Armageddon coming your way, [America’s] buffers may not be adequate.”

(more…)

I warned last week that a recession and higher unemployment were about to hit the U.S. economy. On Tuesday, the Bureau of Economic Analysis cut their estimate of growth in the third quarter ending September from 2.5% to 2%. Then on Wednesday, the Federal Reserve rocked financial markets by forcing America’s 31 largest U.S. banks to “stress test” balance sheets to determine their capability to withstand an 8% drop in the economy; which would cause home prices to plunge by 21%, and unemployment rate to jump to 13%.

I illuminated in my report that U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has been under-counting unemployment by at least 2%. For a nation reporting 154.4 million workers; this means the 13.9 million reportedly unemployed should actually be 17 million. Given only 12.8 million were unemployed at the 1933 peak of the Great Depression, when the undercounting and the Fed’s stress test are added the total is 23.2 million unemployed; almost double the Great Depression.

Formerly bullish top bank analyst Dick Bove in an Bloomberg interview commented on the Fed:

“By taking these draconian views of what could happen in the market, if they in fact force the banks to defense themselves against the outlook that they’ve put up, they’ll cause a recession,”

Consistent with my prediction that the booming production of capital goods would fall hard next year after the expiration of the 100% “bonus depreciation” tax credit; the bad news parade picked up steam this week with reports that U.S. durable goods orders fell 0.7 percent last month and initial jobless claims came in higher than Wall Street analyst’s predictions.

(more…)

While Obama tours the country promoting his personal donation plan, the Republican Presidential hopefuls are in a pitched battle for the nomination and arguing which tax simplification plan is best. Threatened with the possibility of rate cuts, the Media and politicians trot out the usual suspects of lies about tax hikes and tax cuts.  This is a battle Republicans must win and, to do so, they need to expose those lies.

Keep in mind that the battle between those who create wealth and those that want to redistribute it, mainly politicians, is as old as civilization itself.  We read of tax battles and even reform in every age, like Urukagina’s tax reductions in Babylonia/Sumer in 2350 BC.  Equally venerable are the constant set of demagogic lies by those against tax cuts and simplification.  It is important to note that politicians like complicated tax codes and high tax rates because they control those rates and dispense the loopholes and regulations that complicate the tax code.  Tax simplification means they lose power.  As a result, resistance to tax reform is more often the rule than reform. As for the lies, they abound, so let’s consider just a few:

Lie # 1: Tax cuts cause deficits/Tax hikes balance the budget.  The Media and the Left often say that the Reagan and Bush tax cuts led to deficits while Clinton’s tax hikes led to a balanced budget. In truth, according to the IRS, federal tax revenues rose dramatically after the overall Reagan tax cuts/reforms (98%) and the Bush tax cuts (a record $700+ billion). This is just as they did after the Harding/Coolidge cuts (61% revenue increase) and after the Kennedy/Johnson cuts (62% revenue increase).  Those are the four major income tax reductions we have had since the inception of the income tax in 1913 and every time revenues rose after they were in place – every time.

So did the tax rate cut cause a deficit? The lie, of course, is to blame the revenue gathering mechanism (tax code/rate cut) instead of the revenue spending mechanism, i.e. Congress/Presidents.  The spenders kept spending – often at an accelerated rate when they saw the new revenues.  Thus, the fault for continuing deficits lies not with tax rate cuts, which produced higher revenues, but with politicians who spent too much.

(more…)

I’ve made some uncannily accurate predictions in the past 3 years.

Back in 2008, as I ran for Vice President of the United States on the Libertarian Presidential ticket, I made a prediction I’m very proud of today. I said, “Voting for McCain is voting for four more years of Bush. But voting for Obama is voting for four years of Karl Marx.” How’s that working for you?

I also predicted that Obama’s entire Presidency would be devoted to saving the union- the teachers union, government employees union, and auto union. Sure enough, the White House now comes adorned with a union label. If you look closely at Obama’s forehead, you’ll find it’s stamped SEIU. Obama’s signature initiative Obamacare affects every American citizen, except union members. Real life under Obama is more shocking than fiction.

A year ago, while economists and Obama administration lackeys talked of a recovery, I publicly stated we’d never left the last recession and the worst was yet to come. I predicted that “Obama’s Axis of Evil” policies of taxation, regulation, government strangulation, unionization, litigation and illegal immigration would turn a serious economic crisis into The Greatest Depression Ever. It’s all unfolding before our very eyes on a daily basis.

As conditions got progressively worse during 2010, I predicted the Tea Parties would pull off one of the great landslide victories in U.S. political history that November.

(more…)

I am a successful small businessman and a patriot who loves America and always sees its greatness. I am also an optimistic, positive thinker who always sees the glass half full.

But not this time.

I predicted doom if Obama was elected. Sadly the results are far worse than imagined. The economy is in shambles. America is staring at economic disaster — Armageddon. Even me, the eternal optimist is scared at what the future holds. We are the Titanic, headed straight for the iceberg.

America has always been a land of boom and bust. It’s just part of business cycle. But Obama and his socialist cabal have channeled Hoover and FDR, who turned an ordinary bust into The Great Depression with a toxic strategy of more government, more spending, more debt, more rules and regulations strangling business, higher minimum wages, more power to unions, more entitlements, higher taxes, more printing of money by Fed, and trade tariffs. This is the Obama blueprint squared.

The question this time is, is Obama doing it because he understands nothing about business? Or does he understand exactly what he’s doing? Is Obama’s goal to overwhelm the system, incite crisis, sow doubt about capitalism, and force the citizens to beg for government to save them, thereby opening the door to Socialism? Is Obama’s plan to redistribute the wealth, and at the same time to bankrupt the people with wealth and power, thereby crippling his political opposition?

Does it really matter?

(more…)

While many people are cheering the revolts going on throughout the Middle East and shudder at the horrible violence few people are discussing the possible effect that these revolts will have on the world/US Economy.  Should these revolts continue to spike up the cost of oil, the world will be thrown into an economic crisis worse than the recession that began in 2007.

Certainly the crash of the sub-prime housing boom, which was caused by the progressive belief that owning a home was a right, is the primary reason behind the financial crisis and what was to become known as the  “great recession.”  The part that most people forget is that the “pin” that pricked the housing bubble, and led us down the economic abyss was oil prices.  In fact every rescission we have had since the mid-1970s has shown an accompanying spike in oil prices. It is not a coincidence that the worst recession in that period has been accompanied by the largest oil  price spike.

Economist Jeffrey Rubin said in 2008:

Curiously, an over-500% increase in the real price of oil gets virtually ignored as a culprit behind today’s economy, eclipsed by the ongoing crisis in financial markets. Yet the run-up in real oil prices this cycle is over twice the spike in oil prices that occurred during the first or second OPEC oil shock. And those oil shocks produced two of the deepest recessions in the entire post-war period, including the 1980-82 double dip.

The price of oil influences more than just how you heat your house or drive your car.

(more…)

It must be a condition of employment that a journalist who writes about the current recession include in his article the statement, “consumption makes up more than two-thirds of the economy” or “consumption spending accounts for 70 percent of GDP.” This seemingly simple, factual statement, however, is nearly always intended to carry some explanatory weight, and on occasion the writer spells out this explanation by adding a statement such as, “unless consumers begin to open their wallets and spend more, recovery from the current recession will be impossible.”

At first glance, this journalistic commonplace appears to make sense. Anyone can understand that, say, a store at the mall will not hire additional employees unless its sales increase enough to justify the additional expense. Hence, would-be employees will remain unemployed; they will purchase fewer consumption goods than they would have purchased if they had jobs; and therefore the stores will not hire more workers; and so forth. The circle of a theory of income and employment seems to be closed, and thus an explanation provided for the lingering recession: consumers are not spending enough.

One does not need a Ph.D. in economics, however, to discover that something must be wrong with this way of thinking about prosperity and recession. Checking the national economic accounts produced by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (Table l.l.6), one finds, for example, that the most recent quarterly peak in real personal consumption expenditure occurred in the fourth quarter of 2007. This spending ($9,244 billion at an annual rate) equaled 69.2 percent of contemporary GDP ($13,364 billion at an annual rate)—where the data are expressed in dollars of 2005 purchasing power. Real GDP did not fall significantly until the third quarter of 2008. When it reached its trough in the second quarter of 2009, it had fallen to $12,810 billion, down about 4 percent. At that time, real personal consumption spending was $9,117 billion, down only 1.4 percent, and equal to about 71 percent of GDP. Thus, as usual over the course of a boom and bust, consumption spending varied proportionately less than GDP as a whole.

As every student of the business cycle learns early on, the most variable part of aggregate expenditure is private investment. When real gross private domestic investment peaked, in the first quarter of 2006, it was $2,265 billion, or 17.5 percent of GDP. When it hit bottom in the second quarter of 2009, it had fallen by 36 percent to $1,453 billion, or 11.3 percent of GDP. (Deducting investment expenditures aimed at compensating for depreciation of the private capital stock [Table 1.7.6], we find that real net private investment—the part that contributes to economic growth—in the most recent quarter was only one-third as great as it was at its peak in early 2006.) The ups and downs of the business cycle are obviously driven not by consumption spending, but by investment spending.

(more…)

Since the early twentieth century, periods of real or perceived national emergency have been “critical episodes” in the growth of government’s size, scope, and power in the United States and in many other countries. Hence, the concise conceptualization: Crisis and Leviathan (the main title of my 1987 book on the growth of government in the United States from the late nineteenth century to the late twentieth century).

In the past century, the first five such critical episodes in the United States were: World War I; the Great Depression; World War II; a multi-faceted set of crises associated with the civil-rights revolution and the Vietnam War, roughly coincident with the presidencies of Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon; and the post 9/11 events associated with the so-called War on Terror and the U.S. attacks on and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. We are now amid another such critical episode, which springs from the housing bust that began in 2006, the economic recession that began late in 2007, and the financial debacle that reached its climax in September 2008.

The current troubles are complex and raise a multitude of questions. Many books and articles no doubt will be written to analyze these various issues in scholarly depth and detail, and certainly anything we might say today must be regarded as preliminary, at best. I focus here on a few aspects of the present episode that relate closely to my own research on the growth of government, a field of study to which I have returned again and again over the past thirty years.

I

The current recession has elicited many comparisons with earlier business downturns, especially with the Great Depression. Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke is often described as an expert on the Great Depression who takes its lessons, as he understands them, deeply into account as he formulates and implements Fed policies. Likewise, many other economists have revisited the Great Depression recently in search of lessons applicable to current policy-making. In all of these reflections, the mainstream economics profession in general has distinguished itself by an astonishing superficiality of historical knowledge and lack of theoretical prowess.

The swiftness with which a great many mainstream economists have reverted to the simplistic “vulgar Keynesianism” that had its heyday from the late 1940s to the late 1960s has been nothing short of shocking, given that by the end of the 1970s such old-fashioned Keynesianism seemed to have been completely discredited and superseded in the leading echelons of the mainstream economics profession. Now it has come roaring back.

(more…)

The current recession and, especially, the related financial panic in the fall of 2008 have given rise to an extraordinary surge in the U.S. government’s size, scope, and power. As I write, the financial panic has subsided, but the recession, already the longest since the 1930s, seems likely to continue for a long time. Even when it has passed, however, the government will certainly retain much of the augmentation it has gained recently. Hence, this crisis will prove to be the occasion for another episode of the ratchet effect in the growth of government.

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession began early in 2008, but the decline became severe only in the latter part of the year. The financial panic that came to a head in late September 2008 proved to be the catalyst for an accelerated decline in real GDP and rise in the rate of unemployment. The so-called credit crunch in the fall of 2008 prompted the Fed, the Treasury, and the Congress to take a series of extraordinary actions in quick succession.

In September 2008, the Federal Reserve System (“the Fed”) took control of the insurance giant American International Group (AIG), and the Federal Housing Finance Authority took over the huge government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, secondary lending institutions that held or insured more than half of the total value of U.S. residential mortgages. On October 3, the president signed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which, among other things, created the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), authorizing as much as $700 billion for the purchase of so-called troubled assets, primarily mortgage-related securities, held by banks and other financial institutions. Instead of making the authorized purchases, however, the Treasury used the TARP to inject funds into the banks by purchasing their preferred shares. In this way, the government acquired an ownership interest in nearly 600 commercial banks.

Meanwhile, the Fed made a series of unprecedented types of asset purchases and loans, loan guarantees, and asset swaps, and provided other forms of assistance to securities dealers, money-market mutual funds, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Banks, Citigroup, fourteen foreign central banks, and buyers of certain asset-backed securities based on consumer and small-business loans. As a result, the monetary base of the United States increased by more than 100 percent between August 2008 and January 2009.

(more…)

Vice President Biden keeps recycling his unemployment speeches – except he keeps confusing the suburbs of his hometown of Scranton:

1.  On October 19, 2009, he used Minooka:

My pop — my grandpop used to say — there was a suburb of Scranton called Minooka. He said, “When the guy in Minooka’s out of work, it’s an economic slowdown. When your brother- in-law’s out of work, it’s a recession. When you’re out of work, it’s a depression.”  Well, it’s a depression — it’s a depression for millions of Americans, through no fault of their own.

2.  On October 30, 2009, he used Dickson City:

My grandpop used to have an expression. We’re from Scranton. He’d say — and I mean this literally. It wasn’t viewed as a joke. He said, “Joey, when the guy in Dickson City,” a small town above Scranton, “is out of work, it’s an economic slowdown. When you’re brother-in-law is out of work, it’s a recession. When you’re out of work, it’s a depression.” And it’s a depression for millions of American people.

(more…)

Vice President Biden keeps recycling his unemployment speeches – except he keeps confusing suburbs of his hometown of Scranton:

1.  On October 19, he used Minooka:

My pop — my grandpop used to say — there was a suburb of Scranton called Minooka. He said, “When the guy in Minooka’s out of work, it’s an economic slowdown. When your brother- in-law’s out of work, it’s a recession. When you’re out of work, it’s a depression.”  Well, it’s a depression — it’s a depression for millions of Americans, through no fault of their own.

2.  On October 30, 2009, he used Dickson City (the correct spelling):

My grandpop used to have an expression. We’re from Scranton. He’d say — and I mean this literally. It wasn’t viewed as a joke. He said, “Joey, when the guy in Dixon City,” a small town above Scranton, “is out of work, it’s an economic slowdown. When you’re brother-in-law is out of work, it’s a recession. When you’re out of work, it’s a depression.” And it’s a depression for millions of American people.

3.  On December 3, 2009, at the White House jobs summit, he used Throop:

There used to be an expression, and I’m not joking, my grandfather always used it. He was from Scranton, Pennsylvania. He said, “When the guy from Throop is out of work, it’s an economic slowdown. When your brother-in-law is out of work, it’s a recession. When you’re out of work, it’s a depression.” And it is a depression for over 10 million Americans…

(more…)