Thursday, September 15, 2016

Is Obama the Economic Anti-Reagan? Reagan Faster Overall & Wage Growth; Obama Swifter Profit Growth

In 2015, Obama's former campaign manager Jim Messina said, "President Obama in many ways has helped start the same kind of political revolution that Reagan did 30 years ago."

Both presidents inherited recessions but the two leaders are markedly different in terms of fiscal policy responses. Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer insists that Obama seeks to be the anti-Reagan.

During the first 7.5 years of their terms, as a percent of gross domestic product (GDP), Obama increased federal taxes by 3.5%, while Reagan reduced federal taxes by 2.1%. And, in terms of federal spending as a percent of GDP, Obama expanded federal outlays by 0.03%, but Reagan reduced federal spending by 10.0%. As a result of superior economic growth during the Reagan era, the federal debt as a percent of GDP expanded at a slower 17.0% pace under Reagan than the more rapid 27.8% gain under Obama.

Not only have Obama's taxing and spending policies been in sharp contrast to Reagan's, his economic outcomes have likewise been very different. After 7.5 years, Obama's economic gains exceeded Reagan's in the following areas:

1. The U.S. unemployment rate declined by 2.9 percentage points compared to 1.9 percentage points for Reagan.
Business profits, as a share of GDP, expanded by 3.7 percentage points during Obama's tenure compared to a weaker 1.9 percentage points under Reagan.

2. The U.S. stock market advanced by 133% in contrast to a weaker 100% during the Reagan era.
Metrics in which Reagan's economic performance in his first 7.5 years bested Obama were:
U.S. GDP expanded by 27.3% versus 15.3% for Obama.

3. U.S. non-farm jobs grew by 16.1% in contrast to Obama's more tepid 9.7%.
Wages as a share of GDP advanced by 2.1% during the first 7.5 years of the Reagan term, but declined by 1.8% during Obama's first 7.5 years.

Metrics in which Reagan's economic performance in his first 7.5 years bested Obama were:
1. U.S. GDP expanded by 27.3% versus 15.3% for Obama.

2. U.S. non-farm jobs grew by 16.1% in contrast to Obama's more tepid 9.7%.

3. Wages as a share of GDP advanced by 2.1% during the first 7.5 years of the Reagan term, but declined by 1.8% during Obama's first 7.5 years.

Thus, historical U.S. economic performance data support the hypothesis Obama's policies as well as economic outcomes have indeed been anti-Reagan.
Ernie Goss

Friday, August 19, 2016

Super Rich Meet in Omaha and Propose Tax Hike: Highest Bracket Already Pays Six Times the Rate of the Middle

Millionaire Hillary Clinton and billionaire Warren Buffet met in Omaha earlier this month to trumpet higher income tax rates on upper income earners. Ignoring the data, the two super-rich, joined by income laggards Dallas Maverick owner Mark Cuban and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, argue that levying higher tax burdens on workers in the top income bracket will reduce income inequality.

However between 1980 and 2013 when income inequality, as measured by the Gini Coefficient expanded by 22.2%, the share of federal income taxes paid by the highest one-fifth of earners rose from 64.7% to 88.0% while the share paid by the lowest one-fifth declined from +0.1% to -4.0% (i.e. tax rebates greater than tax payments). Even the middle income’s share dropped from 10.7% to 3.9% over the 33 years.

The reasons that taxing high income individuals more heavily does not reduce income inequality are that excessively high tax rates on high income:
1) discourage individuals from pursing higher education and training to increase income;
2) encourage individuals to reduce work efforts and to increase leisure activity;
3) restrain small business formation and risk taking by entrepreneurs seeking greater financial returns;
4) incentivize individuals to spend excessively on goods and services that are deductible from taxes and;
5) encourage high income individuals to move to lower tax nations.

But unfortunately for the economy, envy economics, as evidenced in Omaha in August, remains a viable political tool by generating votes and self-righteous smugness from its devotees.

Ernie Goss

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Taxpayers Need to Shine Light on Solar Energy

In 1982 as a graduate research student at the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Oak Ridge National Laboratory, I worked on solar energy projects. At the time, the goal was to replace fossil fuels with solar energy in the production of electricity. As an infant industry, it was argued that all solar needed was short-term taxpayer subsidies to become competitive with its elder rivals. However after 34 years and massive taxpayer subsidies, the industry still cannot compete cost-wise with rival energy sources in pro-ducing electricity.

The latest DOE data show that in 2013 taxpayers showered solar energy with $4.4 billion in subsi-dies for a mere 19 million megawatt hours (MWH) of electricity production, or one-half of one percent of total electricity usage for the year. That works out to $23 per MWH when the average retail price for electricity was only $13 per MWH. In addition to these subsidies, the federal government invested in scores of failed solar energy firms including $535 million in Solendra, $1.5 billion in Sun Edison, and even $2.7 billion in Spanish solar energy giant, Agengoa.

Despite the subsidies and excessive costs per MWH, advocates argue that solar energy remains an infant industry that needs taxpayer funds and regulatory coddling. If the goal is to reduce CO2 emissions from coal-fired electricity generation, a better approach is to introduce a carbon tax taking the decision making out of the hands of market meddling politicians, and putting it into the hands of individuals and investors with “skin in the game.”
Ernie Goss

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Trans Pacific Partnership A Winner for U.S.: Politicians, Left and Right, Are Wrong

When politics and economics collide, economics comes up roadkill. Take the case of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). More than 99% of economists support this trade pact, yet 100% of individuals still in the race for the U.S. presidency are opposed to opening up Asian markets to U.S. manufacturers, businesses and farmers via TPP.

In October 2015 in Atlanta, the Obama Administration reached agreement with Japan, Vietnam and nine Pacific Rim nations to reduce trade barriers to produce the largest trade pact in the nation's history.

Due to reductions in trade restrictions, the USDA estimates that implementation of TPP will expand U.S. sales abroad by $130 billion annually. According to my calculations, if agriculture accounts for its historic share of U.S. exports, TPP would boost agricultural sales by $8.4 billion, and U.S. net farm income by approximately $1.0 billion in one year alone.

The deal, however, requires Congressional approval and both Democrats and Republicans have finally found something they agree on----rejection of TPP, economic jingoism, or what I will call "economic tomfoolery."

In 2015, the U.S. was the second largest exporting nation, behind only China. In that same year, the U.S. worker was the most productive on the face of the earth. Slinking into protectionism by rejecting fair and free trade agreements only subsidizes the less productive, and slows overall economic prosperity. Ernie Goss.

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Healthy Job Growth, Unhealthy Economic Growth: More Regulations Contribute to Weak Economy

Without even a hint of irony, President Obama last week sold, and even trumpeted, his administration's economic accomplishments to the national press. But much like Arthur Miller's Willie Loman, or Meredith Wilson's Harold Hill, the sales job stands in stark contrast to reality.

True, government data shows the U.S. unemployment rate stood at a healthy 5.2 percent with more than 200,000 jobs created each month over the past two years. On the other hand, government data indicated that the overall economy expanded at an annualized pace of only 1.4% for the final quarter of 2015 and a 0.5% rate for the first quarter of 2016. This seemingly inconsistent data, that is solid job growth and lousy overall economic growth, can be reconciled by peeking behind the headline data.

Since the economic recovery began in July 2009, GDP growth expanded at the slowest pace of any 7-year period since 1947. The brisk job growth has been in part-time, low wage and/or low productivity occupations and industries. For example, over the past two years, a reduction in the average hourly work week resulted in effective job losses of almost 420,000. Furthermore, output per worker since the beginning of the economic recovery is roughly one-third the long-term U.S. average. As a result, average percentage gains in compensation are now approximately 56% of the long-term average.

But there has been one area of vigorous growth---regulations. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Obama Administration is responsible for six of the top seven years of red-tape creation in the nation's history. This is good for economists and lawyers, but not for other workers.
Ernie Goss

Thursday, April 21, 2016

Environmentalism Starves Zimbabweans: GMOs the Latest Target of Anti-Science Zealots

The severe drought and three million starving citizens did not prevent the Zimbabwe government from rejecting food aid earlier this year. What accounts for this hazardous government policy? Zimbabwe now blocks any food aid that includes genetically-modified-organism (GMO) ingredients.

Sounding like a European Greenpeacer, Joseph Made, the Zimbabwe Minister of Agriculture declared that "The position of the government is very clear. We do not accept GMOs as we are protecting the environment from the grain point of view." But the science examining GMOs is more conclusive than research behind Made's baseless position. Since appearing in the lab three decades ago and in supermarkets in 1994, 1,700 peer-reviewed safety studies have been published focusing on human health and the environmental impact of GMOs. The scientific consensus from this research is that existing GMOs are no more or less risky than conventional crops.

Furthermore according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, farmers using GMOs generally use less insecticide, obtain higher yields, and save farmer production time. As a result of its advantages, GMOs accounted for almost half of total land used to grow all U.S. crops in 2013.

African policymakers should look to science, not European environmental Luddites for food policy.

Ernie Goss

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Cashless Payments: Benefits for the Poor?


I just returned from a conference of the ABA Business Law society in Montreal, where I was joined by several pals (Erin Fonte, Jillian Friedman, and Denis Rice) to present on the topic of The Emerging Cashless Society.  Movement away from paper money (or coins) to electronic payments is a global phenomenon.  While other countries may be leading the United States in moving away from cash, the United States is not far behind.

This phenomenon is primarily a product of private ordering.  People choose to transact business with credit cards, mobile payments, or other technologies such Pay-Pal or Dwolla rather than using currency. ( I like to use my Android Pay feature when I am at Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s.  In fact, when the fellow ahead of me uses cash, I cannot help wondering if the young clerk is really thinking, “what are these green papers and why do they convey value”?)  We like the convenience, as well as some of the additional services like fraud protection, dispute resolution, and airline miles that we get with other payment media, which cash cannot deliver.   

Governments are also pushing in this direction.  Cash presents both opportunities and problems.  Problems emerge because of its anonymity and untraceable character, which permit peer-to-peer transactions without an intermediary. Criminal enterprises prefer the certainty and finality of a cash exchange (i.e., the counterparty cannot stop payment on the check or effect a charge-back when the illicit goods are defective), as well as anonymity that cash facilitates.   That anonymity also creates a possibility for tax avoidance, even among otherwise lawful enterprises, as amounts received or paid are known only to the parties exchanging cash.  Without transmission through a network that requires an intermediary to assist in the transaction (such as a bank or payment processor), cash keeps some information private.

A private sphere presents a threat to government, particularly when that sphere can be populated with those hatching schemes that might threaten the wellbeing of others.  But the scope of that private sphere can be very important to people who are engaged in legal activities that have nothing to do with money laundering or tax avoidance.  This is a growing area of tension in our society.

Cash also plays a role in monetary policy that can become an important means of government finance. By printing paper money and using it to buy other assets (such as debt), goods and services, government effectively gets an interest free loan of potentially unlimited duration.  The “federal reserve note” in your pocket bears no interest and has no maturity date.  This feature of money, known as seigniorage, amounts to billions of dollars each year, giving that more than $1 trillion of currency is in circulation.  Although electronic forms of money could also deliver this benefit, some economists have opined that in a cashless society, the money supply likely shrinks as there would be less demand for paper money to be stashed away.
 
Government may also impose an implicit tax in the form of  inflation, which affects  all who hold cash, whether in paper form or in demand deposits.  That large stash of cash that Walter White buried in the desert in Breaking Bad loses value over time. Unlike a demand deposit, which can be readily transferred or reinvested in other accounts or assets with a compensating interest rate, it can be harder to invest that stash of cash, particularly if you have problems with money laundering rules like Mr. White did.

But restricted investment opportunities also affect the poor, who may also lack access to banking services (or face high transaction costs) and must hold and conduct their transactions in cash.  The amounts of cash they have are often not sufficient to participate in investments that might compensate for inflation risk.  Moreover, the cash payments  that they expect from wages, pensions, or government benefits are also subject to the erosion, as these amounts adjust only periodically, while  the corrosive effect of inflation is continuous.  (Of course, this affects all wage earners, not just the poor.)

Although debtors may  benefit from inflation if the interest rate is lower than the inflation rate, the poor who have debt are often put into high risk pools with higher interest rates.  In contrast, note that this week, the WSJ reported that some government debt is actually delivering a negative real interest rate due to the fact that the nominal interest rate is actually less than some measures of inflation. Government may benefit from this policy, but the common man may not (unless he, too, has long-term debt at favorable rates).

Private charities, including the Gates Foundation, have been active in working on improved financial services for the poor.  But these services are the product of innovations in payment processing, credit, and risk assessment, which are generally driven by a motivation for profit.  The ability to make payments electronically with lower transaction costs than cash and the ability to access lower-cost forms of credit will improve their wellbeing.  Innovations driven by the incentive for profit offer the possibility of benefitting the common man in significant ways.  But beware of government efforts to stoke the fires of inflation, which can undo these positive effects. 

EAM