Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Mike:

Real wages are not falling.

Over the last 30 years, generally speaking, they have been falling.

I was speaking specifically of countercyclical policy. And for this discussion one must consider brief periods that cover the recessionary period. My point was that the Fed's low interest policy is functioning much like traditional Keynesian stimulus in that it is supporting consumer demand. I stand by that statement.

Brian:

As you indicated earlier, capital is always invested in some sort of productive enterprises. And, of course, there has never been a "shortage" of capital (in the same sense as we've had shortages of other goods). Of course, this is due wholly to the fact that capital flows freely to where it is most needed. Though the economy as a whole rarely experiences periods where availability of capital is a limiting factor to growth, more fundamental, meta-economic advance (think: mass production, large-scale pwoer generation, widespread computer networks, geonome therapy) occurs only when the cost of capital is so low that funds are readily available to finance "blue-sky"-type ventures. It's inconcievable that we'd ever run out of capital, since any venture that needed the last unit more than the current owner would show this by providing a better return; hence getting the investment. Coke and Disney will never run out of capital; they assure a fairly safe place to invest (at low returns). Only after an investor reaches his comfort level viz conservative ventures will he be willing to put venture capital into something truly revolutionary -- with only the potential to do great things.

To sum up, while the most deserving enterprises will never want for capital, true socioeconomic progress occurs at the margins, where the availability (and therefore the cost) of capital is critical.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Don't you think taxing consumption might discourage consumption?

And this is bad because...?

As consumer spending is the only thing keeping us out of recession, discouraging consumption would put us back into recession. Recession coupled with a still extremely overvalued stock market and already low interest rates greatly increases the likelihood of deflation. And deflation coupled with today's debt levels would produce a depression. I would call this bad.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Don't you think taxing consumption might discourage consumption?

And this is bad because...?

As consumer spending is the only thing keeping us out of recession, discouraging consumption would put us back into recession. Recession coupled with a still extremely overvalued stock market and already low interest rates greatly increases the likelihood of deflation. And deflation coupled with today's debt levels would produce a depression. I would call this bad.

Consider it a "correction"; be aware that it is a direct consequence of rampant real capital consumption over the past decades; know that it, too shall pass and that the sooner you let it get going, the shorter (and milder) it will be. Trust me, deflation is going to kick my butt really, really hard. I'd rather take it myself and have it over with than just try to hand it off to the next poor saps in line. A reckoning must be had. I suppose I'll pay.

sigh.

Mike:

I was speaking specifically of countercyclical policy.

OK, but I wasn't, and you were responding to me.

Justin:

As you indicated earlier, capital is always invested in some sort of productive enterprises.

No, sir, that was what YOU indicated and what I disputed. Please don't try to pull a fast one on us!

And, of course, there has never been a "shortage" of capital (in the same sense as we've had shortages of other goods). Of course, this is due wholly to the fact that capital flows freely to where it is most needed.

Actually there was a time when a shortage of capital existed, in the sense that not enough of it was readily available to invest in what was needed. I'm referring to the pereiod when America was just entering upon the industrial revolution. At that time, government policies encouraging capital formation, though ruthless, made some sense.

That there has not been a shortage of capital since industrialization was accomplished is due to the vast expansion of wealth it brought, not to the fact that capital "flows freely to where it is most needed." Capital could and did do the same thing in pre-industrial America, but not in sufficient quantity.

To sum up, while the most deserving enterprises will never want for capital, true socioeconomic progress occurs at the margins, where the availability (and therefore the cost) of capital is critical.

That the economy as a whole has a surplus of capital does not imply that a particular business always does. What is true for the economy as a whole is often not true of an individual business, and business-specific capital shortages are very common. But what finances these ventures at the margins? Business loans, as you imply? Not usually, because typically such enterprises have a shortage of collateral as well as capital. More commonly, marginal enterprises, when they need capital beyond the founder's personal savings and personal credit, are funded by speculative venture capital offerings. Currently, it's harder to get venture capital than it used to be. Because there's less of it available? No, because venture capitalists see less likelihood of a good return. They could pump just as much into startups as they did in the '90s, but they don't, and mostly for very sound reasons.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Of course, this is due wholly to the fact that capital flows freely to where it is most needed.

Capital flows to where it is believed that it will earn the greatest return relative to the "safe" alternatives. The cost of capital is the rate of return provided by the safe alternative.

The assumption behind your statement is that the place where investment earns the best return is also where it is most needed. This assumption is known as the efficient markets theory, and is the holy grail of free-market economists.

Efficient markets only holds rigorously for markets in which perfect knowledge exists amongst market participants. For many real-world markets perfect knowledge is approximated sufficiently well for it to work in practice. (This observation is the practical argument in favor of free markets).

But none of us knows the future. Thus efficient markets are unlikely to exist in futures markets such as financial markets. However, many economists hypothesized that if financial market particpants all had the same information, financial markets would approximate efficient markets in practice. For example, if one employed a suitable smoothing technique to filter out "noise", what was left would approximate an efficient market. Recent financial market movements have greatly weakened this belief.

Also, recent academic studies showing that surprise! technical analysis works (something professional traders have always insisted upon and economists denied) also demostrate that financial markets are not efficient.

So the evidence today strongly indicates that capital does not always (or even mostly) flow to where it is most needed. In fact, it sometimes flows to some pretty bizarre places (e.g. pets.com).

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Consider it a "correction"; be aware that it is a direct consequence of rampant real capital consumption over the past decades.

Could you expand on this concept of real capital consumption? I see no evidence of a decline in capital stock.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Mike:

I was speaking specifically of countercyclical policy.

OK, but I wasn't, and you were responding to me.

Um no. I wrote this originally:

And there is no doubt about this issue today amongst economic authorities, right or left. There is adequate demand in our economy today, funded in part by massive infusions of cash from mortgage refi. This in turn has helped keep employment up and wages growing, which provides a second support for demand.

I was referring to recent Fed policy that stimulates consumer demand by producing cash from mortgage refi.

You responded questioning whether employment had really held up or wages rose as a result of this policy. I replied with data that showed it had relative to the last recession when this policy was not pursued. You then replied that you were referring to a 30 year trend of declining wages. I replied to that comment and now you say I switched the subject?!?

Brian:

Apologies for mis-paraphrasing you. I though our disagreement was at a different level. Again, apologies. Please read below:

Mike:

Capital flows to where it is believed that it will earn the greatest return relative to the "safe" alternatives.

Of course. The equilibrium and perfectly rotating economy are pointless fictions wielded by econometricians. Reality is choices made on the basis of imperfect information and a basic desire to conserve one's own resources. Clearly not all choices made are optimal. The best one can hope for is a fairly consistent set of basic assumptions to start from. WRT the 90's mania and crack-up boom, the poor investments were a direct result of not only imperfect information, but an actual deception -- the artificially low interest rates (which should be an indicator of real capital growth and the availability of new capital stock). While capital appeared cheap, it was flung around in a fairly reckless manner. Much was lost on enterprises which should have been obviously doomed to fail. But hey, it kept the stock market up. Until the correction forces a house cleaning and re-allocation of resources to those more solid ventures. Whatever resources cannot be recovered (think thousands of miles of dark cable, for instance) are capital effectively destroyed during the boom. Accounting for that destruction by letting the rate of interest on capital attain its own level will be unpleasant. Faking it, however, just makes the sitation worse.

Then you go on to say:

The cost of capital is the rate of return provided by the safe alternative.

which, while not inaccurate, misrepresents the reality of the situation. The cost of capital is the difference in value between the immediate satisfaction of whatever marginal want the capital could alleviate and the present value of the deferred satisfaction of whatever marginal want (as assumed from the present moment) that capital could alleviate. It varies completely from time to time and person to person, and is a function of each individual. You commit the econometrician's fallacy in implying that it is quantitative. It is not.

This said, technical analysis has very little valuable insight to offer into the cost of capital. I'm not sure what POV you think I'm coming from, for the view you seem to impute to me. Your analysis of the efficient market, while valid, looks like a strawman response to the ponts I'm making. Have you read any of the books I listed and linked to earlier?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Consider it a "correction"; be aware that it is a direct consequence of rampant real capital consumption over the past decades.

Could you expand on this concept of real capital consumption? I see no evidence of a decline in capital stock.

:lol: Of course you don't! That's the whole point of the Fed "holding down" interest rates -- to disguise the loss of capital (presumably until more can be formed to fill the gap).

Beautiful!

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Consider it a "correction"; be aware that it is a direct consequence of rampant real capital consumption over the past decades.

Could you expand on this concept of real capital consumption? I see no evidence of a decline in capital stock.

:lol: Of course you don't! That's the whole point of the Fed "holding down" interest rates -- to disguise the loss of capital (presumably until more can be formed to fill the gap).

Beautiful!

You didn't explain what you mean by real capital consumption.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

The cost of capital is the difference in value between the immediate satisfaction of whatever marginal want the capital could alleviate and the present value of the deferred satisfaction of whatever marginal want (as assumed from the present moment) that capital could alleviate.

For some people all their immediate marginal wants are satisfied with only a fraction of their capital. There are no wants to be deferred. In this case no value can be determined.

Mike:

Um no. I wrote this originally:

You didn't write anything originally in this discussion, which began between me and Suz X. You entered into that discussion disagreeing with both of us. As such, I think it's valid for me to point out that the subject under discussion wasn't the business cycle or countercyclical moves.

The statement "there is adequate demand in the economy today" is broader than what you are now indicating.

Justin:

Your quotes attributed to me are actually Mike's.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I guess I wasn't clear. I meant to question why do you favor a consumption tax? Don't you think taxing consumption might discourage consumption?

Consumption will be discouraged to the extent that it should. If I'm an old guy sitting on a $100 million and I'm faced with paying half of it in estate tax, I'm more likely to consume now even if I'd rather invest for my future or my heirs' future. This consumption is very likely to be wasteful.

Relatedly, if I'm not working but sitting on $100 million the tax code practically screams that I borrow and offset the interest cost against investment income (or just borrow against unrealized invetment gains) and spend spend spend even if I'd rather just invest.

Yes, there will be some crimp in consumption in the short-term but in 4Ts sacrifices are made for what is expected to be a more rewarding future. The expected reward in this case is consumption that is more efficient and in tune with true desires and not distorted by an outdated tax code. Boomers can initiate this - they believe consumption is slightly sinful anyway. Indeed the taxes that have been raised recently are sin taxes and user fees - all consumption taxes. Xers will bear the brunt of the taxes - they'll be in the prime consuming years but they'll go along as long as the administration of the taxes isn't too intrusive and inefficient. Millies will be partially protected from these taxes by making them progressive.

Pat Buchanan says not to hold him to a date but the global economy is coming down soon:



Is the global economy about to crash?

Posted: January 27, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Patrick J. Buchanan

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30693

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Mike:

Um no. I wrote this originally:

You didn't write anything originally in this discussion, which began between me and Suz X. You entered into that discussion disagreeing with both of us. As such, I think it's valid for me to point out that the subject under discussion wasn't the business cycle or countercyclical moves.

The statement "there is adequate demand in the economy today" is broader than what you are now indicating.

I see where we got off-track. In my first response I was trying to show that modern policy makers, even conservative ones, buy one aspect of your argument, that support of demand is sometimes necessary for short-term support of the economy. I was using the current situation as an example. This is important because the last crisis (1929-32) policymakers did not agree with you at all, and we had a depression.

[quote="Crispy '59"]

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

If I'm an old guy sitting on a $100 million and I'm faced with paying half of it in estate tax, I'm more likely to consume now even if I'd rather invest for my future or my heirs' future. This consumption is very likely to be wasteful.

In actuallity, the millionaire generally puts his fortune in trust and so avoids estate taxes in this way. But even if we ignore this, you are arguing that using the money to buy Enron, Worldcom, or even QQQ (NASDAQ 100) shares in 1999 or 2000 was a better use of the money than buying real goods and services provided by real businesses?

Alistair Cooke, in his 1973 book ?America? (Knopf), said this in its epilogue titled ?The More Abundant Life?:

?Very often when I was on the road and writing or pondering all this, I found that many old American maxims and idioms, snatches of songs and sententiae floated from the back of my mind into the front of it. When you climb down a rocky cleft in the Great Smokies to a trailblazer?s cave on lean into the slamming wind of the prairie, it is not hard to see why ?Root, hog, or die? became a warning watchword for several generations. At other times, coming on the records of pioneer husbands who had abandoned their families and joined a railroad gang or headed for the mining country, I found myself spoiled for a choice of their proper epitaph, between ?Westward the course of empire,? ?Pike?s peak or bust,? or ?I love my wife but oh, you kid!? And traveling past the rickety cabins of the black man?s back country, and through his scabrous city slums, there often seemed to be only one American theme song: ?Sometimes I?m up, Sometimes I?m down, And sometimes I?m almost to the ground.??

So, what?s new, y?all?

Just watch our cowboy president hit the ground running tonight in his State Of The Union address. Makes me wonder if these hostile Islamic tribes of the Middle Eastern deserts are the new savage ?Indians? to America, standing in our way of another Manifest Destiny?for ?The More Abundant Life.?

--Croaker

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Justin:

Your quotes attributed to me are actually Mike's.

Damn! These three-ways can get confusing. :wink:

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Consider it a "correction"; be aware that it is a direct consequence of rampant real capital consumption over the past decades.

Could you expand on this concept of real capital consumption? I see no evidence of a decline in capital stock.

:lol: Of course you don't! That's the whole point of the Fed "holding down" interest rates -- to disguise the loss of capital (presumably until more can be formed to fill the gap).

Beautiful!

You didn't explain what you mean by real capital consumption.

The following are examples of real capital consumption:

- The thousands of miles of dark fiber optic line in the ground. Even if those lines are someday put to use, the capital expended in putting them up now is unavailable for present use anywhere, and the amount of value they lose (via rot, obsolescence, maintenance, etc) is value gone forever -- since it never provided more than a 0% return.

- The manufacture of cruise missiles. These things are completely obliterated at the end of their life cycle (along with other capital investments). During their life cycle, they produce no capital returns (and, in fact, require maintenance and transport -- which themselves drain capital stocks).

In both cases, the capital consumed consisted at least of the materials used in the manufacture of either product, the resources expended to keep alive the people who worked on them, and the accellerated wear on the machinery used to make the products. These things were expended to no future return. Thus, the capital, once had, has been consumed.

"Capital" exists in at least three different forms: financial capital, human capital, and natural capital. Most economists focus on financial capital and ignore the other two kinds. Financial capital can purchase the other kinds, which is its only purpose for existence; "real" capital consists of natural resources and labor, and financial capital consists of tokens worth so much labor or so much material.

It is in my opinion a serious mistake to ignore natural capital, which will very shortly be the limiting factor for economic growth. Natural capital can definitely be consumed, either through overconsumption of renewable resources so as to exceed their recharge rate, or through consumption of nonrenewable resources which have stock limits, or through damage to the ecosystem which lowers the available resources even without consuming them. The economy is a wholly-dependent subfunction of the planetary ecosystem. During the second half of this Crisis we will receive pointed reminders of that fact.

Pat Buchanan is, of course, onto something, although he'd probably take the reasoning to a prescription that has little merit. The U.S. trade deficit is the key both to why the global economy worked for a while, and why it is currently tanked.

Economic activity consists of the production and sharing of wealth. Wealth so produced flows in a circle. In a healthy economy, business employs labor to shape natural capital into good and services, pays the labor enough to allow people to buy the products it produces, and then receives the money back from sales.

But today's global economy is not healthy. Business today radically underpays most of its labor force, slightly underpays the remainder, tries to sell the goods and services it produces to the slighly underpaid, and pushes credit at interest toward the slighly underpaid in order to make up the resulting gap. The huge U.S. trade deficit is a direct result of the fact that American workers are only slightly underpaid while those producing the bulk of the manufactured goods are obscenely underpaid; the entire scheme rests on producing goods throughout the world for sale almost exclusively to Americans. It is an unsustainable scheme. This is the global commerce equivalent of slash and burn agriculture, except that there are no new grounds to move to when this scheme is exhausted -- as it now appears to be.

The only way the global economy can work is if every country that participates in it adopts the kind of progressive labor policy now existing in the U.S., if not that of Europe. This would raise wages throughout the world, and allow goods produced globally to be marketed globally as well.

Brian:

"real" capital consists of natural resources and labor, and financial capital consists of tokens worth so much labor or so much material.

Labor itself is not a commodity; so is not a form of capital. What you seem to be thinking of is time. Capital goods are created when an individual spends time producing something which will not be immediately consumed. Therefore, one could say that the two forms of real capital are time and resources. Both, clearly, can be expended.

As for resources -- 'natural' capital is practically an oxymoron, as capital is a function of actors, irrespective of their environment -- it is worth keeping in mind that no resources are as limited in supply as is the time alloted to an individual human being (immortality being out of reach at present). Resources can be substituted or rearranged; your life can be extended somewhat, but is irrevocably finite-to-short. This will be the limiting factor for the foreseeable future.

Brian said "All workers are underpaid. American workers are slightly underpaid." (paraphased)

I don't know what that reminds me of more: "All people are equal. some are more equal than others."

or

The Lake Wobegon slogan about 'all the children are above average'.

Just another example of words meaning, not what they mean, but what someone wants them to mean. (E.g., is is).

Hey, I know I'm underpaid. I don't need anyone else to tell me that. :-P ;-)