John C. Wright ([info]johncwright) wrote,
@ 2009-03-23 16:22:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Bankruptcy
As of the time of this writing, Treasury Secretary Geithner is asking Congress to hand over another trillion dollars of taxpayer money for additional economic stimulus. A trillion is a thousand billion. When added to the national debt already assumed during the first 60 days of the current administration, the sum is beyond imagination. If printed up in one hundred dollar bills, this would circle the planet thirty times. It is equal to the national debt of all the presidents from George Washington to George W Bush COMBINED. Which means that, if we had to pay once more for the continental railway, the national highway system, the New Deal, the Great Society programs, the moonshot, the Civil War, two world wars, and the Cold War all over again, we could do so with this amount of money and have some left over to spend on buying Alaska from Russia again. Added to what we have already spend, the current trillion of dead comes to over three trillion dollars.

You will never pay down this debt; your children will never pay down this debt; your grandchildren will never pay down this debt. Living under the crushing burden of this debt, your children and grandchildren can look forward to economic conditions created by high taxes, hyperinflation, and the exclusion of private sector borrowing from credit markets, since the Federal Debt will absorb that market.

And, no I am not outraged, or even interested, in the bonuses paid to AIG officers, except, perhaps, a clinical interest in seeing what happens when a once-great nation passes from a mere neurotic aversion to facts and truth, to full-bore psychotic break with reality.

It might be an interest course assignment for  a law student to count the number of Constitutional provisions and Blackstonian legal principles of Anglo-American law a penal tax on specific individuals might offend, when the individual not only broke no law, but did only what their contractual oblations demanded.

That the stimulus package originally contained an (perhaps an unconstitutional, certainly tortous) provision to prevent the payment of bonuses, which language was removed before the bill was signed, merely add insult to folly. That neither the drafters of the bill nor the President who signed it read the bill before its passage adds comedy to insult to folly. The legal precident involved is that the majority in Congress, bound by nothing but their own corrupt will, shall henchforth have the power to take any property, real or personal, in confescation, of any persons of whom they disapprove, for any reason, or no reason.

Let me quote Mark Stein: 

As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, the $165 million in bonuses is less than 1/18,500th of the $3.1 trillion budget. The massive expansion of government the president is planning is forever, and will ensure you that end your days in what Peggy Noonan calls "post-prosperity America." More immediately, what message do you send to the world when legal contracts can be abrogated by retrospective confiscatory bills of attainder? You think that's going to get anyone investing in America again?

The investor class invests in jurisdictions where the rules are clear and stable. Right now, Washington is telling the planet: In our America, there are no rules. Got a legally binding contract? We'll tear it up. Refuse to surrender the dough? We'll pass a law targeted at you, yes, you, Mr. Beau Nuss, of 27 Plutocrat Gardens, Fatcatville. If you want a banana republic on steroids, this is great news. So cheer on thuggish grandstanding by incompetent legislators-for-life like Barney Frank if you wish. But, in any battle between the political class and the business class, you're only fooling yourself if you think it's in your interest for the latter to lose.

Let me quote John Hinderaker;

Wells Fargo didn't want any TARP money, but the government forced it to take more than $5 billion worth, so Wells Fargo employees who receive bonuses would be subject to Pelosi's proposed tax. Say you're a teller at Wells Fargo and you're married to a lawyer who makes $250,000 this year. You get a $10,000 bonus for your good work during 2008. The government steals it all (90 percent federal plus 8.5 percent state plus, unless it's included in the 90 percent, 3 percent Medicare). That is simply insane.

If the Pelosi bill is actually enacted into law (which I still think is doubtful) and upheld by the courts, there is no limit to the arbitrary power of Congress. In that event, we have no property rights and there is no Constitution—no equal protection clause, no due process clause, no impairment of contracts clause, no bill of attainder/ex post facto law clause. Instead, we are living in a majoritarian tyranny.

Since he wrote those words, the House passed the measure. I don't know if it has gone to the Senate yet.


 






(33 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]robert_mitchell
2009-03-23 10:15 pm UTC (link)
It's ok. The important thing is that we taught the Republicans a lesson.

But seriously, this is what happens when you crush the good in your quest for perfect. "Porkbusters", the ports deal tantrum, "illegal immigration", Miers. There were quite a few pointless tantrums in the ranks of the Republican party. None of them seem important compared to the rising darkness do they?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]fpb
2009-03-25 05:54 pm UTC (link)
They were important. The truth is that the McCain/Palin ticket performed a miracle just getting within a few points of Obama. Anyone else would have been destroyed, instead of putting up a respectable fight. Any Democrat candidate would have won. The country was sick of Republican corruption, Republican profligacy and Republican lies. That they then got them all in spades and redoubled from the Democrats only goes to show that both parties stink.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]axiem
2009-03-23 10:45 pm UTC (link)
Well, I guess there's no time like the present to live like a Biblical ascetic. After all, the apostles lived lives in relative material poverty, as did the church in Acts, and so on.

I think of Proverbs 22:7--"The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender."

How long now, do you wager, until a new revolution?


Edited at 2009-03-23 10:46 pm UTC

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]johncwright
2009-03-24 05:52 pm UTC (link)
"How long now, do you wager, until a new revolution?"

Good question.

Never.

Revolutions require a certain firmness of spirit notoriously lacking from this generation, and very unlikely to be found in the next generation. Our school system and public entertainment, and, more of all, our system of public welfare will encourage the opposite spirit.

Currently, among inner-city blacks, three out of ten children will meet their fathers. Seven out of ten will never know their fathers and never see them. The social Welfare system in Britain has produced among their lower class (and they do have classes in Britain, unlike here) a similar result. When you break the family, you break the spine of society. Now, can you imagine the children of single-mother families, creatures whose highest ambition in life is to join a gang, organizing itself into an effective rebellion against a regime backed by the largest and most deadly and most professional army in history? Or were you expecting the Armed Forces to stand by idly during an attempted coup, or, worse, to join the rebels?

Come now: do you see the English or the French seething with rebellion against their smothering, nanny-state governments? No, not at all. The riots in Europe are either Mohammedans using their political will to force the weakling governments to new concessions, or are welfare-dependents, public servants and dole-recipients and the like, rioting for additional benefits.

Revolutions are fought over ideas. The idea of liberty is unfortunately exhausted in America, as is the idea of Socialism. The hogs at the public trough are not going to rebel against the farmer to slop them less.

The election of a shallow socialist ignoramus like Obama indicates that the American people are no longer enthused about ideas like liberty, or ideas like keeping their own property, or ideas like maintaining their own survival.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]axiem
2009-03-24 10:06 pm UTC (link)
So what of us, then? We who wish for liberty and who would spill the blood of tyrants to grant it to citizens? We few who reject communism in full, and yearn for a return to a free market? We who do not wish to see debt accrued in our youth never be paid back in our lifetime? Must we sit idly by, watching our government and our citizens slowly drag themselves back into tyranny?

I do not much like the idea of slowly becoming subject to an overbearing and self-destructive government.

The most quoted portion of the Declaration is that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

What is so often forgotten is what comes after: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Is there nothing we--you and I, and those precious few who are our political ilk--can do to stem the tide, to perhaps save us from the cliff I fear we are about to go over?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]robert_mitchell
2009-03-25 03:56 am UTC (link)
Breath, sir, breath. This is still the greatest country in the world. Where would you escape to? As to freedom, we have more practical freedom then anytime in history. The freedom to leave has never been easier. Everyone has access to a printing press and an audience. The free time to work ratio has never been better. The powers that be are panicking over the freedom that the internet, and doing silly things in reaction. Don't follow suit.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]axiem
2009-03-25 04:41 am UTC (link)
Aye, though at times it feels I can do nothing but despair.

I am young and stupid enough that the railing against our system makes me want to know what can be done to fix it, to make it better. I always want to know what I can do to ameliorate even some small flaw in our massively broken system.

Or perhaps, as the author of Ecclesiastes puts it:
"There is something else meaningless that occurs on earth: righteous men who get what the wicked deserve, and wicked men who get what the righteous deserve. This too, I say, is meaningless. So I commend the enjoyment of life, because nothing is better for a man under the sun than to eat and drink and be glad. Then joy will accompany him in his work all the days of the life God has given him under the sun." (8:14-15)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]robert_mitchell
2009-03-25 03:36 pm UTC (link)
Well, step back and get some perspective. If the system was "massively broken" we would be back to licking sticks to get the termites out of the mound. The system is working. It could be working better. That is the human condition. "We only of creation, Ah luckier bridge and rail, abide the twin damnation, to fail and know we fail. And yet by which sole token we know we once were gods, take shame at being broken, however great the odds, the numbers or the odds." Acknowledge that every engine needs some messy smelly, dirty oil to work, and don't let the quest for the perfect destroy the good we have built.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]bibliophile112
2009-03-25 12:39 am UTC (link)
Currently, among inner-city blacks, three out of ten children will meet their fathers. Seven out of ten will never know their fathers and never see them.


This is an interesting and depressing statistic, but fails to shed much light on national social malaise without more information, namely how much of the nation's populace is inner city blacks? Or how many broken homes are there, as percentage of the country?


Regardless, I agree that no revolution against the US government will occur anytime soon, and would certainly fail if it did. Revolutions are years in the making.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]fpb
2009-03-25 05:57 pm UTC (link)
My advice to you is to spend ten years in Britain or France, instead of repeating the talking points of townhall.com columnists none of whom (with the sole exception of Suzanne Fields) have the least idea what they are talking about.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]randallsquared
2009-03-24 12:47 am UTC (link)
"You will never pay down this debt; your children will never pay down this debt; your grandchildren will never pay down this debt."

While I technically agree with this (because I expect Change to obviate much of this, one way or the other), I'd like to point out that compared to WWII debt, this isn't spectacular, as a function of the GDP, and for paying down the debt, that's all that matters. Don't construe this as support for taxes or public debt, please; I'm just saying that anyone who bothers to google up some numbers and graphs will see that it's not necessarily economic doomsday.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]johncwright
2009-03-24 05:34 pm UTC (link)
Granted. Well, the big flaw in my analysis, is that my comment was based on raw numbers, not adjusted for inflation, nor compared to Gross National Product.

However, I also expect GDP to contract in coming years. Just today Geithner is asking Congress to grant the Treasury Department the power to expropriate large financial companies in the name of the common good.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]lordbrand
2009-03-24 10:19 pm UTC (link)
Try starting with this:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/27717424/?slide=1

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]xander25
2009-03-24 01:11 am UTC (link)
Hate to sound snarky....but are there any Galt's Gulches available?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]randallsquared
2009-03-24 01:45 am UTC (link)
Being worked on: http://seasteading.org/ :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]botticelli_s
2009-03-24 01:36 am UTC (link)
Thanks to you, Mr. Wright, I am finally trying to learn about economics. I am reading up on the Austrian School of which you speak, and I see much there that makes sense. Please continue with your commentary.

(Reply to this)


[info]sce2aux
2009-03-24 01:37 am UTC (link)
The recent GovCo spending is best summed up by the word "obscene"

John... take us away from this mess and update us on any novel progress.

(Reply to this)

Words of wisdom
[info]oscillon
2009-03-24 02:13 am UTC (link)
You know, John, Reagan proved deficits don't matter.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Words of wisdom
[info]m_francis
2009-03-24 02:39 am UTC (link)
A modest running deficit matters no more than if you carried a mortgage debt and some commercial credit suitable to your means.

A deficit opened up in the early 80s because "the worst recession since the 30s" (as it was then called) resulted in federal revenues running flat for two years while Congress continued to increase spending. (The increases had been put on automatic in the let's-stick-Nixon-in-the-eye budget reform.) However, once the recovery kicked in, the gap between revenues and expenditures began to close, and continued to do so until the first Bush signed off on what was then the biggest tax increase ever -- and a retroactive one to boot.

It's how you create the deficit that matters. If you do it by building a nationwide network of interstate highways, that's actually not so bad. If you do it simply by siphoning all the money out of the private economy so you can spend it on the things you know it "ought" to be spent on, that's not so good.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Words of wisdom
[info]oscillon
2009-03-24 07:08 pm UTC (link)
Ah, it was a sarcastic misquote of Cheney. He famously said this to Paul O'Neil when O'Neil asked how they were going to avoid running up the deficit. "You know, Paul..." They canned O'Neil a month later because he wouldn't go along with higher spending and a second round of tax cuts without complaining. Nobody got the reference, my bad.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Words of wisdom
[info]rlbell
2009-03-24 07:46 pm UTC (link)
I think that you are confusing a running deficit with an operating debt. An example of an operating debt is money the banks extends to farmers so that they can spend money earned after the crop is sold to plant that same crop. There are other businesses that are cyclic in nature with upfront costs and future revenues, and they all use operating debts. The operating debt is incurred at the beginning of the operating cycle and paid by the end of the same operating cycle. A running deficit is akin to repaying your credit card by transferring the balance to a new card with a higher limit, and continuing to spend past your means.

At some point, the US will have to trim down its spending to less than its tax base (the excess goes to paying down the debt).

What makes me want to laugh is hearing an Obama speech (only a few weeks ago) that stressed not having an out of control defecit. Looking at his policies, the only element of control in the defecit has the same connotation as the 'controlled' in the expression 'controlled flight into terrain'.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Words of wisdom
[info]johncwright
2009-03-24 05:31 pm UTC (link)
"You know, John, Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

If you mean that they do not matter politically, i.e., politicians can run up the national debt and suffer no loss of votes, I won't argue the point. If you mean it does not matter in reality, i.e., nations can pursue policies that lead to inflation, capital decumulation, and flight in the real values, without leading to a crack-up bust, there I must disagree.

The everlasting shame of the Republican party is that none of their major candidates are actually fiscal conservatives. No matter how honestly the fox swears that this time, he will guard the henhouse for sure, the next morning the fox has feathers in his grin.

During a time when the Republicans controlled house, senate, and White House, disbanding such leeches on the public purse as the National Endowment for the Arts or the Energy Department was not even discussed. Clinton was more fiscally responsible than any other recent administration.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]jordan179
2009-03-24 04:26 am UTC (link)
Obama's going to pay it, I presume, by devaluing the currency. Which will destroy much of the value of everyone's savings. Meaning, of course, that we're all going to pay it, and so damned fast that it will ruin tens to hundreds of millions of lives.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]rlbell
2009-03-24 03:59 pm UTC (link)
I would hazard a guess that Obama has no intention of paying it, and certainly not by devaluing the currency. Paying it back is someone else's problem. The US dollar is a peculiar currency. It should have been in freefall for some time, due to the huge trade imbalances, but the habit of exporters to the US of parking their trade dollars in US government debt instruments has balanced the urrency flows-- dollars flow out to import stuff and are loaned right back. Devaluing the currency will result in all of those debt instruments losing value. If the dollar does not hold value as well as the euro (for example), there will tend to be a shift away from US government debt. If it loses value as a matter of policy, US government debt instruments become toxic investments and the only way to fund a deficit is to run the presses, with the government promising to repay this form of debt by having a large bonfire at a later date (this is already done, but not at a rate that seems to threaten investors).

While the US debt is well into the range of owing enough money that if it defaults it is the banks that are in trouble, having to pay for imports in the exporters' currency, not US dollars, will really hurt the economy. The US needs its trading partners to accept US dollars and buy US debt. To keep trading partners doing this requires monetary policy that keeps the value of the dollar unmoving as possible.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]jordan179
2009-03-25 12:20 am UTC (link)
Obama may have no intention of devaluing the currency, but there is no way that he can pay for his proposed spending without running the printing presses, and increasing the dollar supply will devalue the currency, whatever Obama intends. What will happen, plain and simple, if Obama gets his spending plans through, is that the US dollar will no longer be the international medium of exchange.

Oh, and before that happens, the recession will become a worldwide depression as countries which have made the mistake of holding onto American dollars as stores of value suddenly find the value of their dollar assets cut in half or more.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]fpb
2009-03-25 05:59 pm UTC (link)
And move to the euro.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]westmarked
2009-03-24 04:49 am UTC (link)
I'm reminded of this from last Friday.


I like XKCD, but it's not exactly the first place I go to for conservative commentary. This comic is really overt.

(Reply to this)


[info]fpb
2009-03-25 05:50 pm UTC (link)
The massive expansion of government the president is planning is forever
No it is not. I do not mean because it is not meant that way, but simply because America cannot pay for it. Money is the most just thing in the universe: if you do not have it, you do not have it, and no amount of printing pieces of paper will make it otherwise. You may imagine that the reach of the welfare state in European countries is excessive, but in fact it is calculated very carefully upon what the nation can afford. For instance, there is no such thing as unemployment benefit in Italy. Why? Because the country cannot afford it. Taxation and borrowing together simply cannot produce enough revenue to allow the unemployed to receive a monthly cheque, and so that does not happen. Instead, Italy pays partial wages to laid-off workers, on the reasoning that these will in general be older men supporting families. It is not a nice compromise, but the country has survived it for fifty years. Every European country always calculates to a nicety exactly what it can afford. The Obaman expansion is atrociously ill-calculated and ill-grounded, and it will end with the urgent need to cut spending.

Mind you, Obama did not invent the notion of getting in debt as a virtue. That particular merit goes to Bush II, if not indeed earlier. The poisonous nature of the Bush tax cuts, and the reason why I hated them from the word go, is not that they struck disproportionately one class rather than another; it is that they reduced overall income just as the President and Congress were increasing expenditure, with a madly expensive couple of wars, a number of poorly costed entitlement plans, et caetera. Once the coupling of income and expenditure had been broken, no wonder Congress went feral.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Inflation
[info]johncwright
2009-03-25 06:53 pm UTC (link)
" Money is the most just thing in the universe: if you do not have it, you do not have it, and no amount of printing pieces of paper will make it otherwise."

Wise words. I wish more people understood this simple principle.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Inflation
[info]elurian
2009-03-26 03:55 am UTC (link)
Good point about keeping things in context. When numbers get this big, people stop paying attention to them.

Here's one of the most blatant examples I can think of:
If anyone in the media were to use some common sense, they could put this in context by examining what it would take to completely recapitalize the system if we were starting from scratch. Data directly from the FDIC: TOTAL Tier 1 Equity Capital (common stock) for every single national financial institution in the country (think all megabanks and nearly every community bank) to find out is less than $1 trillion. This does leave out credit unions and state charters, but their equity is a very small fraction compared to national banks.

Estimated final costs for the bailout range from $3 trillion to $20 trillion and beyond (note that the highest estimates do include interest. and I'm not controlling for TVM, but still...). Translation: our lowest direct estimates now are that we will pay enough to have completely recapitalized our entire financial structure 3 times over.

How did this happen? To understand this, you have to address the issue of capital leverage. If a bank has $1 in stockholder money and loans it out to earn 6%, and if overhead's a nickel, that leaves a penny, or a 1% return on both assets and stockholder equity. This is a pretty poor rent (and likely to be poorer as inflation kicks in), and it's pretty tough to run the bank for that nickel in overhead. If, on the other hand, the bank borrows $9 from depositors at 3% and loans that out at 6% as well, we've got 28 cents. That's only a 2.8% return on assets, but it's a whopping 28% return on equity. Our capital leverage, or equity ratio is 10% (equity/assets). The danger is that a 10% loss on that portfolio is now enough to completely wipe out our equity (which is why capital leverage is a sensitive issue), which is why banks have historically been prevented from overleveraging themselves.

Because derivative hucksters and bad execs colluded with our esteemed political representatives to make money out of nothing by overleveraging the system, our system is now burdened with more debt than equity and are now mortgaging our futures to cover their paychecks. People are screaming for more regulation in one of the most heavily regulated (and least consistently enforced) industries in the country, but the bottom line isn't that there was a lack of regulation. It's that our politicians were bribed to allow exceptions to the regs that already exist. Credit Derivatives (think bogus insurance) got a free pass, and they now outweigh total honest-to-goodness loans by a significant margin. Incidentally, on a dollar-for-dollar basis, comparing credit derivatives to equity, banks $10 billion or larger have roughly 23,000 TIMES as many credit derivatives as community banks, but they're all being clustered together. That's the problem of capital leverage.

Here's the scary thought - guys like Chris Dodd will sell trillions of dollars for a paltry quarter-mil in campaign contributions.

That's the problem of Capitol leverage...


(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]jackaroonie
2009-04-14 12:10 pm UTC (link)
Please excuse my ignorance. What is the difference between "the unemployed to receive a monthly cheque" and "pays partial wages to laid-off workers"?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]fpb
2009-04-14 01:30 pm UTC (link)
People who would have been dismissed from long-term employment are instead put on the state payroll. A lot of the unemployed do not fall into this grouping.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

The Manifesto
[info]matt_robare
2009-03-25 11:14 pm UTC (link)
My anarcho-capitalist brethren at LewRockwell.com have very helpfully posted article after article on how the previous administrations (back to Hoover) have slowly but surely been fulfilling all ten planks of The Communist Manifesto.

(Reply to this)


(33 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…