Category Archives: Economics

The Fiscal Cliff Aversion, Avoidance and New Arrears Act of 2013

Late at night on New Year Day of 2013, the House voted after much last minute handwringing to accept the Senate compromise bill to avoid the Fiscal Cliff.

Reality is that the cliff has not been averted, just the rough edges of it.

Along the way many bargaining chips were wasted to get very little.

On December 31st the national credit card hit its limit. Treasury Secretary Geithner says that he can move some things around to pay the bills through sometime in February. Our new Fiscal Cliff Avoidance Bill of January 1st 2013 now adds almost $400 billion per year in new national debt per the CBO’s analysis.

LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

The Republicans now own Obama in the next round of negotiations over increasing the debt limit. That crisis hits within six weeks. As the Washington Post put it: “The bill avoids austerity but doesn’t tame dangers of national default, high unemployment or swelling debt.”

There is little to rejoice about in the Senate bill, now approved by the House, because it is fiscally irresponsible. It will cause much of the good that it has supposedly created to collapse in upon itself … not within years but within months.

The GOP itself has major issues and #1 among them is that its has allowed itself to be held hostage by the Tea Party mentality of talk a tough game without having any specifics. It has also allowed ideologues like Grover Norquist and the disciples of Arthur Laffer to warp the ability of the GOP to think in terms negotiating for the greater good of the country rather than the GOP just following unproven maxims that always seem to increase the debt rather than resolve it.

Back in the good ol’days of RINOs ruling the GOP, our national debt was relatively low and social policy moved forward in some sense of balance because people went to the negotiating table with the intent of getting a balanced deal of trading off benefits and finding bill payers, and cutting debt where possible — and we often did cut a lot of debt.

Back during the good ol’days of the 1950s/60s/70s/80s Dems and Reps were able to work together on many things that kept debt low or paid down the debt while accommodating social concerns.

However, what the GOP has going for it now is that it owns the House vote at the precise moment that President Obama will need agreement on a host of issues for which he does not have many bargaining chips to put on the table.

We will see the stock market’s view of this deal play out over the next week. Whether you love or hate Wall Street, the stock market is considered a fairly reliable indicator of which way the economy is going.

$400 billion of new debt per year has just got to scare investors worried that the nation’s #1 purchaser of services, goods and materials may not be able to pay its bills either on time or in some cases be able to pay them at all — forcing renegotiation.

We also have the FY2013 federal budget to complete. Our new federal year started in October and we still have no approved federal budgets. Those too must now be negotiated with many in the new Congress of a mind to to pare back spending to offset this Fiscal Cliff deal.

In our aversion to negotiating in good faith (both parties) we have avoided the Fiscal Cliff from arriving on January 1st, 2013. But in doing so we have merely bought breathing space of just 1-3 months before we must return to the negotiating table for what are perhaps even larger stakes.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Economic Recovery, Economics, Employment, Jobs & Employment, National Debt, Taxes & Taxation

Jobs Report December 2012 – The BIG Picture as to where jobs numbers are going

Below are December 2012 jobs numbers and where they fit in the big picture.

2012 Jobs Recovery Chart as of Dec 2012

Get updates online at CRGraphs.com

The big picture has been that the jobs recovery period has been taking longer and longer and looooooooonger for jobs to return to their high point.

Back in 2009 a number of economic models were published that pointed to 2017 as the probable year when jobs finally recover to 2007 levels.

There are also some dark sides to the models that say full recovery will not be until 2022-24.

There are many different reasons as to why it is taking longer and longer for jobs to recover — and they never did recover to their high point from the 2001 Recession; the percentage of employed Americans has continually dropped since 2001 … with today being 2012 and that trend continuing.

You can blame left policies. You can blame right policies. But mostly we are doing two things which almost guarantee fewer jobs.

#1 is that we are enjoying the benefits of an information society tied to both industry and to productivity. The productivity rate of Americans is almost double that of population growth. Bottomline: we can do more with less, and when times get difficult we really can do much more with less … and once we do then there is no going back.

#2 is that our economy is so integrated with the world economy that we no longer feel bad selling our fellow citizens down the river if we can get a better price on a product produced anywhere else in the world. That may sound cynical but it is reality. There may be American flags flying at our shopping malls and in front of mega-stores but concepts like ‘borders’ and having an ‘integral economy’ really do not matter in our modern world — the only thing that matters is our own job which will enable us to keep buying whatever from wherever whenever we want.

Thoughts and ideas?

Leave a Comment

Filed under Economic Recovery, Economics, Jobs & Employment

Fiscal Cliff Alert Status for 2012.12.05: Condition Red

When it comes to the Fiscal Cliff, we all have much to lose.

The CBO projects that going over the cliff means that the economy takes a nosedive during 2Q 2013 and unemployment will easily break 9% by early 3Q 2013.

Should we go down the Fiscal Cliff path then 2013 will be a year of random misery as different parts of the economy adjust to magical movement of money, or lack thereof, in the marketplace. Ours is a marketplace addicted to subsidized money on both the left and the right, whether it be cheap credit cards, zero percent loans to large banks, defense spending or social spending, grants, shared underwriting of public programs or tax credits and deductibles for private investments.

Neither side is close to blinking. Neither side is close to have a ‘deal’ that their own party can support.

Negotiation on avoiding the Fiscal Cliff will go all the way to the 11th hour … and perhaps no deal will come about. More probable than just being possible at the moment.

President Obama has a strong hand for shooting down many aspects of what the GOP wants, although the GOP does not have any actual plan that is supported both within the House and the Senate as of yet. So criticism that Obama has rejected the GOP plan are largely empty words — there is no GOP plan that the GOP itself has endorsed that can provide a guaranteed 51%+ supportive vote in either the House or in the Senate.

And yet President Obama’s challenge is that he needs a deal that the GOP House will approve, and so far there is no real Democratic plan on the table that can provide a guaranteed 51%+ supportive vote in either the House or in the Senate.

The only two people that have a written plan are Simpson-and-Bowles … and neither the Dems nor the Reps are embracing it.

Today’s Risk Level of going over the edge: Condition Red

Leave a Comment

Filed under Deficit Spending, Economics, National Debt

And yet … still I am voting Obama.

And yet … still I am voting Obama.

I wrote a piece the other day about the need for paying attention to the national debt, deficits, and paring expenses while balancing the budget.

Someone challenged me: how can I be concerned about these things ‘and yet’ vote Obama?

It is simple really.

I don’t see Obama as a great master of change. And no, I don’t believe that he has any grand plan for 2012-2016. He has disappointed me at times over the last four years — but I started out with lowered expectations since I’m a traditional Republican voter (70-80% of the time, maybe higher at local level).

So what do I see in Obama? Obama has lived up to his reputation of being ‘no drama Obama’ … which is good considering that the GOP has been after his ass since almost Day One with no intent of cooperating and working together for meaningful change and reform in any way on almost any issue. Obama has been a voice of stability working to bring most things to the center for resolution.

As for the incredible debt etc., every president develops each year a five year outlook into the future as to where budgets and debt are probably going. President Bush’s prediction for growth of our national debt has been Obama’s reality. Debt under Obama has barely differed from Bush’s prediction by 10% or less during his first two years in office.

—- As for Year 3 (2011) and Year 4 (2012), President Bush’s budget projection assumed that the war would be over in Afghanistan by 2011 and so no funds were programmed. Add the war expenses back in and accrued debt during Obama’s entire term is almost a straight line from where it was on Day One of his presidency, and in line with Bush FY2009′s Five Year Presidential Budget projection.

As for Obama’s legacy of debt to programs that started under his presidency: less new debt created by any president since Truman.

If you are a social conservative sure there are lots of reasons not to like Obama. If you are a fiscal conservative that understands basic math and understands the difference between ‘incurred obligated debt’ and debt due to new programs then Obama has been pretty good with a dollar.

My second reason for supporting Obama and essentially defecting from my GOP roots of almost 30 years: I really don’t think that the GOP gets it. They are not really so pissed off about Obama’s policies as they are that they lost in 2008. All this talk about ‘taking our country back’ is usually just empty, angry rhetoric that translates to ‘sure the country melted down on our watch but that was just a fluke. We like things the way they were’.

And so with just days to go until the election I do remain very concerned about America’s future, that damned fiscal cliff will be a much deeper drop than many suspect, and runaway debt seems endless. And yet … and yet I am voting for someone that I believe really has no plan, or any objective, that is any bigger or more grandiose than keeping America’s economy stable and just buying time to heal on its own. That is a classical conservative approach.

My choice may not be a brilliant choice. But for me it is a far better choice than voting for a return to what got us here to begin with.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Deficit Spending, Economic Recovery, Election 2012, National Debt

Jobs – Jobs – Jobs! … or is it really just Talking Point Agendas that gets presidents elected/reelected?

Do we really know or care how economics work in our daily lives?

Or do we just want magic to happen and to not be bothered by the thought of it all?!

Please, just sell us some good talking points. Give us some more happy talk. Give us some more trash talk that we can believe in!

President Obama is taking repeated butt kicks over his seeming inability to jumpstart the jobs market. Yet even with having to deal with the Great Recession’s fallout, President Obama statistically has a better track record in the jobs department than does his predecessor, President Bush.

—–>> Reality is that both presidents Bush and Obama have experienced the same phenomena when it comes to jobs creation. Jobs creation has been sluggish since 2001 and there seems to be few ideas for jumpstarting jobs growth that actually yields more than momentary results — and generally unimpressive results. We can do more with less and we are. Welcome to the future.

Erstwhile conservative commentator and former GOP Congressman Joe Scarborough posted the jobs-created-by-president chart below on his Facebook page, along with the comments that follow the chart.

Jobs by president 1960-2012 - Joe Scarborough

“Job growth is obviously what everybody talks about as a major factor in these elections…[Bill] Clinton is sort of the gold standard with 9.9% job growth. And then you see both Obama and Bush 43 essentially with no job growth…You see a mixed picture of presidents who got re-elected and how the job growth corresponds. What’s not on here is Jimmy Carter, who actually had the best job growth of all of them. He had 12% job growth during his first four years and still didn’t get re-elected.”
Joe Scarborough, Oct 18, 2012

If a president deserves credit for jobs creation, do they deserve that credit because of their policies? … or do they deserve it because of their use of the bully pulpit to push change in a given direction? … or do they deserve credit only if we like their partisan left-or-right highest ranking most popular talking points?

Jimmy Carter is considered a weak president and yet Carter is the platinum standard by which jobs growth could or perhaps should be judged.

Bill Clinton is universally the recipient of good will for strong jobs creation during his tenure, and President Reagan is held in the highest esteem by the Center-Right even though Reagan only comes in third place for jobs creation during his time in office.

Let’s consider policy. Policy is why we say that we elect presidents. We know President Obama’s record: weak jobs growth but there is now stability. So is the New Romney better equipped than the Old Romney? When Romney took office as governor of Massachusetts his state ranked #37 in jobs growth and by the end of his term Massachusetts was #47.  Yet we hear constantly that Romney has the experience and the business background to grow jobs. He is a businessman, a CEO. So what happened in Massachusetts? Do policies actually matter?

The impact of policy adjusts itself over time. What works during one time period may completely flop the next.

As well, the productiveness of a policy even during the same presidency may only have a very short impact, positive or negative. When Bush jumpstarted the economy in late 2006 his tax policies policies produced only two quarters of above average jobs growth and then jobs growth returned to its downward path — even though the amount of money coming into and flowing into the economy continued to grow.

One of the reasons that jobs growth under Bush 43 was so poor (essentially the same as under Obama) was that our economy had adjusted itself to take advantage of technologic efficiencies while also getting rid of a large portion of manual labor (shifting those jobs overseas).

The math that bit Bush and Obama will also bite whomever is president during the next four years. We have embraced a policy path that puts profits before people. That may be good for folks at the Walmart, K-mart and Target checkout counters but it is not producing jobs.

If it is all about Jobs Jobs Jobs! then maybe we need to acknowledge that perhaps we have broken the system and need to reconsider the entire concept of work, compensation and jobs growth.

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Economic Recovery, Jobs & Employment

12,000,000 New Jobs from 2013-2017? Bill4DogCatcher does the math.

Governor Romney has set 12,000,000 new jobs within four years as his jobs creation goal, and is chiding President Obama for not being capable of achieving that.

Many prominent economists have predicted 12,000,000 new jobs (an increase over the number of people working today) as the expected rate for jobs growth during this period (2013-2017) under normal circumstances.

Those normal circumstances are that jobs keep up with population growth.

Here is the math:

If jobs grow in direct proportion to population growth of 1.01%/year then over four years that works out to 12,560,000 jobs created, or 3,140,000 jobs per year as an average. However those 12 million jobs still represent a ZERO SUM GAIN and does nothing to replace any of the  jobs lost since 2007′s Great Recession. Those jobs only represent the needs of current population growth.

—–> The Math: U.S. population  is 314M (3Q 2012) / 100 * 1.01 = 3.14M jobs/year … or 261,667 jobs per month are needed to keep up with population growth.

The challenge for whomever is the next president is that the U.S. productivity rate is currently 2.2% (2Q 2012), which is double the rate of population growth. Theoretically, with a ratio of 1.01:2.2% (population growth:productivity growth), the need for workers is decreasing at twice the rate of population growth.

—–> The Math: If productivity continues to increase at its current rate then mathematically we should expect jobs growth at only half the rate of population growth (261,667 jobs = 1.01% population growth per month). So if only half the number of jobs are needed to match the growth in productivity then that number works out to just 130,833 jobs per month as being the expected monthly average.

During 2012, the 2012 average monthly jobs growth rate has been 146,000 jobs  per month as of October which is appropriate for what the math tells us should be norm. If that remains the case (productivity rate vs population growth) then what we are probably looking at as realistically being the expected number for jobs growth between 2013-2017 is just 6-7 million jobs, not 12 million or higher.

Things can change but math says that we are where we should be without some game changer. Where we are is that jobs are not growing to match population growth, not even close.

The chart below shows jobs growth since 1980 as a percentage of Americans having a job. Since 2001, the percentage of Americans with jobs has dropped almost every year and incrementally almost every month since 2001. The exception was a strong but short-lived growth in jobs in late 2006 and early 2007.

BLS 1980-2012 Labor Participation Rate

BLS 1980-2012 Labor Participation Rate

Here is what the chart looks like on a monthly basis since 1980:

BLS 1980-2012 Labor Participation Rate by Year and Month

BLS 1980-2012 Labor Participation Rate by Year and Month

Leave a Comment

Filed under Economic Recovery, Economics, Jobs & Employment

Candidate Romney and the presidential debate – Oct 3, 2012 – Some challenges

A number of folks have commented that Romney needs to come off as being human in his first debate with President Obama on October 3rd.

True enough … Romney does need to appear to be human.

Not everyone makes for a strong public figure. Thomas Jefferson was considered a dynamic thinker only when his words are considered. He did not publicly portray strength and leadership in public — yet when the going got tough he had enough wits and humility about him to step down as governor of Virginia so that someone with a leadership personality could take the office and to do justice by the citizens of Virginia.

For Romney – appearing to be human (someone that exudes considerate thought and empathy) will be a herculean task inasmuch as Romney needs to overcome his 47% remarks, the negatives of being the founder and chief proponent of Bain (this is a philosophical argument, but when you refer to your firm as being a harvester of other companies you really need to explain why this isn’t related to a Soylent Green economy), being unwilling to follow the example set by his father of laying your cards on the table to show that you have nothing to hide (the standard of showing the last 10 years of tax returns as a minimum), and being someone that has published an 87 page ‘50 Point Plan‘ on his website that offers no details at all about how the rhetorical ‘Plan’ would have a chance of ever happening … The 50 Point Plan does a great job of pointing out what needs fixing but offers few clues as to how to do that.

Romney needs also to portray how he would not be a stooge of the Tea Party and folks like Rush Limbaugh, who famously advised him: ‘This election isn’t about you, it is about Obama‘. Romney also needs to explain how he could keep his PROMISE to raise defense spending by approximately 16%, so that it equals 4% of GDP ($578B) while balancing the debt and how he would go about his campaign PROMISE of creating 12,000,000 jobs with four years.

I have a few other thoughts … but Romney needs to get beyond these if he wants to convince folks that he is a better option than the devil we already know.

President Obama is not the perfect candidate either — but we’ve come to know him. In most respects President Obama is just President George Bush’s third term with healthcare reform thrown in … and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell thrown out.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Democratic Party, Economic Recovery, Election 2012, Elections, Jobs & Employment, Republican Party

Candidate Romney and the presidential debate – Oct 3, 2012 – Some challenges

A number of folks have commented that Romney needs to come off as being human in his first debate with President Obama on October 3rd.

True enough … Romney does need to appear to be human.

Not everyone makes for a strong public figure. Thomas Jefferson was considered a dynamic thinker only when his words are considered. He did not publicly portray strength and leadership in public — yet when the going got tough he had enough wits and humility about him to step down as governor of Virginia so that someone with a leadership personality could take the office and to do justice by the citizens of Virginia.

For Romney – appearing to be human (someone that exudes considerate thought and empathy) will be a herculean task inasmuch as Romney needs to overcome his 47% remarks, the negatives of being the founder and chief proponent of Bain (this is a philosophical argument, but when you refer to your firm as being a harvester of other companies you really need to explain why this isn’t related to a Soylent Green economy), being unwilling to follow the example set by his father of laying your cards on the table to show that you have nothing to hide (the standard of showing the last 10 years of tax returns as a minimum), and being someone that has published an 87 page ‘50 Point Plan‘ on his website that offers no details at all about how the rhetorical ‘Plan’ would have a chance of ever happening … The 50 Point Plan does a great job of pointing out what needs fixing but offers few clues as to how to do that.

Romney needs also to portray how he would not be a stooge of the Tea Party and folks like Rush Limbaugh, who famously advised him: ‘This election isn’t about you, it is about Obama‘. Romney also needs to explain how he could keep his PROMISE to raise defense spending by approximately 16%, so that it equals 4% of GDP ($578B) while balancing the debt and how he would go about his campaign PROMISE of creating 12,000,000 jobs with four years.

I have a few other thoughts … but Romney needs to get beyond these if he wants to convince folks that he is a better option than the devil we already know.

President Obama is not the perfect candidate either — but we’ve come to know him. In most respects President Obama is just President George Bush’s third term with healthcare reform thrown in … and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell thrown out.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Democratic Party, Economic Recovery, Election 2012, Elections, Politics, Republican Party

President Obama Meets Ohioans … and discusses whether we are better off four years later (Humor)

President Obama recently travelled to Ohio where he met the locals and discussed the question: “Are you better off than four years ago.”

He did this on Saturday Night, Live.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Economic Recovery, Economics, Election 2012, Elections

Barack Obama – ‘the worst president in history’ – koolaid and destiny

Over and over the faithful repeat the mantra that President Barack Obama is the worst president in history, and the second coming of Jimmy Carter.

Keep drinking the koolaid: The GOP is doing itself longterm damage if it keeps up the mantra  that President Obama is the worst president in history. That constant repetition would seem to absolve the GOP of coming up with ideas and having to appeal to people with real alternatives.

Repeatedly saying the worst president in history just means that the rest of America is comprised of idiots if they somehow don’t see it that way. Some of those idiots vote.

Bad news: when it comes to Obama being the worst president in history the rest of America doesn’t see it that way. Not the great majority nor a simple majority see it that way.

Surveys show that fewer than half of Americans blame Obama for today’s economic situation. Two-thirds still blame the Bush Administration — you can’t get to 2/3rds unless a sizeable number of Republicans also believe the same way … and they do.

Surveys show that independents such as myself would like to vote for a conservative candidate … but we aren’t buying  the worst president in history mantra. Mitt Romney responded recently to complaints that he wasn’t bashing Obama enough — Romney noted that his own focus groups just didn’t buy in to the storyline of the worst president in history.

Yes, Obama made some promises that he couldn’t keep. As a conservative independent (a real one, not one that votes straight GOP and then claims to be independent), I’m disappointed in a lot of things as regards the Obama Administration. However, I also don’t believe that the GOP has acted in good faith over the last four years. The GOP has shown neither the ideas nor the maturity of real remorse to claim that it can do better than Obama.

I voted GOP and for John McCain in 2008. In 2012 I lean towards Libertarian Gary Johnson but will vote for Obama if it appears that Virginia is on the edge of tipping to Mitt Romney, which at this time it is not.

Yes, I want the GOP to lose. A big loss would be great. Super. I would like the GOP to have a come-to-Jesus moment where it really reflects on how we and it got here.

As a stalwart GOP member from 1980-2009 it hurts me to say that I would like the GOP to go down in defeat in 2012 — but it is also the truth.

For the GOP, the last four years have been all about ‘taking our country back’ … back to what? … and to when? … Occasionally the words get mumbled ‘We could have done better …’. Those few perfunctory words are neither sincere nor followed by examinable public policy that shows the GOP means action, real reform, and not just more empty words that can’t pass a Math 101 review.

President Barack Obama is not the worst president in history.

Chances are good that history will record Obama as a president with a difficult economy that includes an aging population and a revolution in business productivity plus massive outsourcing plus two wars on his hands. History will also record that anything that Obama achieved was done with one of the most intransigent oppositions ever in American history by a Congress that was at a low of 19% approval rating — and has since fallen to barely a 10% approval level lead by folks that want to take us back and to tell us that President Barack Obama is the worst president in history, and the second coming of Jimmy Carter.

Leave a Comment

Filed under American History, Economic Recovery, Economics, Election 2012, Republican Party