Bill's Notes

Dark thoughts on a Monday afternoon
OK, it's safe to say we're probably going to get economically hammered. The U.S. economy has proven itself incredibly resilient to the shocks it has faced in the past eight years. It survived:

* the Dot-Com bust
* the Y2K and tech-related busts, which caused a serious recession
* a series of horrific corporate-governance and securities-related scandals
* the 9-11 terrorist attacks
* the over-reaction of Sarbanes-Oxley, which was extremely costly to U.S. businesses
* record-deficit spending
* losing one U.S. city to a massive hurricane-related flood
* gas prices that tripled and simply remained high
* a housing boom-and-bust
* an unpopular, expensive war, and
* a credit crunch.

We've taken a hell of a lot of hits, though many of these wounds were self-inflicted. Still, we've absorbed huge losses and kept going. It appears, however, that we're starting to show signs of weakening. The U.S. dollar is falling, we're seeing inflation, and the economy is sliding into recession. We still face an ongoing, expensive war in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and we've got dark clouds on the horizon in both Iran and Pakistan.

That's what the next president faces. Simultaneous trouble at home and abroad. High oil prices. Remember also that in 2010, the Bush tax cuts sunset, and we will face the largest tax increase in U.S. history. A big tax increase during stagflation or even just a recession is usually a bad idea.

And none of the leading political candidates seems to be talking about what we need to do. Domestically, the good news is we've been here before. We've been plenty better buggered than this. Unfortunately, the solution is painful.

1. Created a tighter monetary policy to contain inflation. (Unhappily, this will cause a nasty recession, but it will lift and we'll be on solid footing.)
2. Tax cuts to encourage investment and spending.
3. And this is crucial — rein in government spending. Everyone talks about this as if it's complicated, but it's politically complicated. Truth is, there are only four big spending items, and everything else is cheap. They are military spending, welfare entitlements, interest on the debt, and Social Security. The cuts have to come there, or they will come from nowhere. Better, a balanced budget will calm the markets.

Next, we need to do something about oil prices. This solution is fairly simple, but not without pain:

1. Energy independence. This needs to be our top priority — it's the reason we're involved in the War on Terror (along with our support of Israel), and it's the reason our economy is under such attack right now.

2. Support investment in alternative technologies by offering to protect U.S. investments. The problem with investing in non-oil technologies is OPEC can just drop the price to $10 a barrel one day and then all the investment is lost. This happened in the early 80s and people who were investing got hammered — severely. People are skittish to do it again. We need to eliminate this risk by, essentially, protecting those industries with a tariff. I know tariff is a scary word. But say we say, OK, imported oil is never again going to be cheaper than $50 a barrel in this country. That gives companies a benchmark — at $49 a barrel, our new technology is cheaper than imported oil.

Next, we need to do something about the Middle East. I can't see anything politically feasible at this time short of inoculating our population against a bioweapon and threatening to release it if we keep getting pestered.

And if that doesn't work, we can always pull back all our troops from overseas, put them on the Mexican border, cancel our foreign debt and renege on our foreign obligations, and ride out the ensuing worldwide terror and economic shitstorm as New Switzerland.
Paul Burgess (www):
Bill, don't worry: soon as the US dollar really starts tanking, it and the Canadian dollar and the Mexican peso will all be replaced by the amero, new common currency of the North American Union.

Y'know, amero? Sort of like the euro, only this side of the Atlantic.

This will provide a boost to the Mexican economy, hence less Mexicans flooding northward. Not that they could really be considered illegal border crossers any more, not once the US/Mexican border, by dictate of some NAU bureacrat, pretty much ceases to exist for most practical purposes.

Hey, I live on a gravel road far out into the Iowa countryside, I could switch over to an ethanol-driven generator for electricity on short notice. I could buy most of my food locally-grown too if I put my mind to it, in exchange for silver bullion if need be. How 'bout you?

On a more serious note, I wish the American populace still had the nerve needed to deal with the direction we seem to be heading. Time was when they did. But in this soft and effete age? Not so much.

Fasten your seatbelts. It's gonna be a bumpy ride.
3.10.2008 4:59pm
Bill (mail) (www):
Gonna be bumpy indeed. The question is 70s bumpy, 30s bumpy or Rome-after-the-Vandals bumpy? (My guess is 70s bumpy.) Thing is, I lived thru the 70s the first time and I'm NOT going thru disco again. But I didn't live through the Vandals so at least it would be new.

As far as surviving a complete societal breakdown, no, I'm not quite ready for that. I would need a lot of supplies and there would be a steep learning curve.

I guess out in Iowa, you'd have plenty of ethanol. Here in Carbon County, PA, we have plenty of anthracite, so I guess I could get a coal-fired generator for a real emergency. But no way to pay for the coal. Well, I have guns. So I guess I'd have to be a highwayman :)
3.10.2008 6:47pm
Super G (www):
I think we're past the point where OPEC can overwhelm demand. If they produce more cheaply, China will absorb it and grow their demand. We're in the post-cheap oil era.

SG
3.10.2008 8:49pm
Super G (www):
With respect to the economy -- we juiced it for quite a while by massive government deficit spending -- so massive deficit spending isn't really something we "survived" in the past. The impact of the deficit is something we now have to survive. Deficit spending poured extra money into the economy that wasn't supported and adding to things like the housing bubble and now, acutely, inflation.
3.10.2008 8:57pm
Bill (mail) (www):
I thought the housing bubble was created by an excess in credit, which in effect meant too much money chasing too few products in one specific area of the economy -- the real estate market. But how did the deficit fit in?
3.10.2008 9:38pm
Super G (www):
Yes - you know I am always overstating the deficit problem - crappy obsessive analysis on my part.

However, we've run our economy since the 80s for all but a few years by dumping into huge amounts of extra cash - this meant that all of the growth is artificially inflated, which means that wages and money to loan were artificially high. Foreign governments bought up our debt to keep the $ value in check avoiding the inflation that they are no longer willing to prevent.

Krugman (when I could read him) was talking about this quite a while ago.

So - when you look at the very broad crisis - it doesn't start and end with a housing bubble. It was excess/easy credit combined with an economy running on an unnatural influx of cash from government deficit spending.

My constant deficit obsession doesn't forget that we have tremendous flow of money out of the country because of oil and manufacturing. Service jobs only re-circulate money within a country, largely, unless we provide the service abroad.

I think all of these things are interconnected and addressing only part of them won't cure out problems.

Basically we've had our cake and ate it too for a long time and it is becoming time to pay the piper. Like a junkie, the country has to give up spending without paying for it.

George
3.11.2008 10:20am
Bill (mail) (www):
Well, I don't believe for a moment that the 26-year economic boom since Reagan was caused by deficit spending. That's what the Democrats have been trying to argue the whole time because the misery of the 70s was supposed to last forever, and then it didn't, and the Dems were profoundly disappointed.

We don't need deficit spending to keep our economy strong -- in fact, we'd do much better off without it. But we can't send the whole country to rehab.

We have let a lot of jobs go overseas, though. In fact, I should have added the "massive offshoring" of U.S. jobs, not to mention China's open theft of intellectual property (buying U.S. products, stealing the IP, and then putting U.S. businesses out of business.)
3.11.2008 11:20am
Super G (www):
I don't believe that the entire 26-year boom is a result of deficit spending, but you don't know how much is either AND you don't know what portion of that boom is actually related to deficit spending.

Tax-cuts are good for the economy, but what do I think is the biggest factor to change in the last 30 years? The following chips: 286, 386, 486, Pentium, Dual-Core, Quad-core. That probably would have happened without deficit spending or tax-cuts.
3.11.2008 3:54pm
Super G (www):
Oh well. My usual crap editing.

PS As usual, excuse my deficit obsession.
3.11.2008 3:56pm
Bill (mail) (www):
Quad-core? Shit, I'm obsolete already!

I don't believe that the entire 26-year boom is a result of deficit spending, but you don't know how much is either AND you don't know what portion of that boom is actually related to deficit spending.

I wouldn't venture to guess, so yes, I would agree. My best guess is that the boom continued when we didn't deficit spend. If anything, it accelerated.

PS As usual, excuse my deficit obsession.

Well, you've got good reason to worry -- deficits can eventually destroy the economy. I mean, right now we have $400 billion in interest going out the door. What if that $400 billion instead was spent on energy independence technologies, including stuff we already know how to do -- such as coal to diesel? What, three, four years and we'd be changed over.

Interest on the national debt of France at the time of the French Revolution was half the annual budget. The king's struggling with a wheat shortage on one hand, and an inability to really do much given his financial constraints, led to the calling of the Estates General meeting that led to his axing, to the Reign of Terror, the Empire, Imperial Wars, and such.

Now, we're not the bloodthirsty and glory-hungry French, of course. But I'd hate to see much more of our revenues go to interest.

Honestly, I think we should declare the national debt to be "the world's payment to the U.S. for bailing it out during the Cold War and saving the world from communism" and cancel it. Sort of an after-the-fact tax. boy, that would go over big.
3.11.2008 4:38pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?
Thank you for choosing to comment on IndustrialBlog. Our commenting policy is pretty simple: Be civil. If you are mean-spirited, tendentious, vexatious, quarrelsome and/or annoying, you just may get deleted. If you are charming, sophisticated and/or funny, on the other hand, you may get a free rein no matter what you say. It depends. Also, please note that commenting is for this post ONLY. Do not comment on other posts here. If I closed comments for a post, I did so for a reason. Thank you. Please enjoy your stay at IndustrialBlog, and remember the Blogosphere can be dangerous place -- be careful out there. The Management.