Wednesday, November 21, 2018

Recreational Marijuana's Impact on the Mile High Economy: More Jobs, Government, Crime, and Taxes

As of October 2018, 31 states and D.C. have legalized marijuana in some form. Alaska, California, Colorado, D.C., Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington have adopted the most liberal laws for recreational use of marijuana.

To gauge economic impacts, Colorado, the first state to legalize recreational use, represents the best case for analysis. Since 2013, when marijuana was legalized in the state, how has the Colorado economy performed relative to the nation?

Jobs and GDP . Between 2013 and 2018, Colorado experienced a 19.7% boost to inflation-adjusted GDP compared to a much lower 12.1% for the rest of the U.S. On a per capita basis, Colorado expanded inflation-adjusted GDP by 10.8% versus a lower 7.5% for the nation. In terms of job gains for the same period of time, Colorado grew its jobs by 14.7% compared to a much lower 10.0% for the U.S.

The Size of Government . Per 1,000 in population between 2013 and 2018, Colorado added 6.1 state and local government workers, while all other states kept state and local government as a share of the population flat. Had Colorado expanded state and local government at the same pace as the nation, the state would have had 34,204 fewer government employees in 2018.

Crime Rates. Between 2015 and 2016 per 100,000 inhabitants, Colorado reported an increase in violent crimes of 24.2 compared to the nation's 12.5. During this same time period per 100,000 inhabitants, Colorado's robberies climbed by 2.9, while the U.S rate rose by a lower 1.1.

Tax Revenue. Colorado's growth in tax revenues from the pot trade rose from $67.6 million, for the year after legalization, to $247.4 million in 2017. This rapid tax revenue growth has motivated other states to legalize or consider the legalization of the recreational use of marijuana.

This narrow examination of economic data from Colorado suggests a mixed picture of the economic impact of such an expansion.
Ernie Goss

Wednesday, October 24, 2018

Retiring Baby Boomers and Rising Interest Rates Explode Federal Debt.

There is at least one thing that Democrats and Republicans agree on: higher and higher federal spending. Since President Trump took office in the first quarter of 2017, federal spending has expanded by a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 3.9%, while tax collections have advanced by a more modest 0.9% CAGR.

As a result, the federal debt exploded by a CAGR of 4.6% to an estimated $21.6 trillion in the third quarter of 2018, representing 104.8% of the nation's annual output, and the highest since the last quarter of the Obama Administration.

Both Democrats and Republicans signed on to this spending growth with Democrats resisting tax cuts, but embracing spending increases. The federal debt will only get worse. With more than 10,000 boomers retiring each day, social security payments are soaring at a CAGR of 4.6%, and Medicare benefits are exploding at a CAGR of 5.0%.

Furthermore, ultra-low interest rates allowed the federal government to borrow needed funds at historically low rates. Since December 2016 to the present, the yield (interest rate) on U.S. Treasury bonds has risen by three-quarters of one percentage point. As a result of rising interest rates and a larger federal debt, interest payments have climbed by a CAGR of 5.0%. Should rates on U.S. Treasury debt rise to the 1990-2007 average, annual federal interest payments would grow by $160 billion to $200 billion, annually.

Without spending restraints, Gen-Xers and Millennials will face higher taxes, elevated interest rates, rising inflation, or all three of these "evils." Former Colorado governor Richard Lamm summed it up quite well saying, "Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want, and the kids pay for it." Ernie Goss

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

Trump’s Economic Progress Exceeded Obama’s: Less Regulation and Tax Cuts Play Important Roles

By the end of July 2018, President Trump had presided over the U.S. economy for approximately 1.5 years. Compared to President Obama’s last 1.5 years, how has the Trump economy stacked up?

Overall economic growth. For the first 1.5 years of the Trump administration, the U.S. economy expanded by 4.1%, but for the last 1.5 years of the Obama Administration, the U.S. economy advanced by a much smaller 2.2%. Not only was growth significantly stronger in the Trump era, growth in the Obama Administration was trending downward in his last 1.5 years. Conversely, growth in the Trump Administration is trending upward.

Table 1 compares the Trump Administration’s first 1.5 years to the last 1.5 years of the Obama Administration’s across several critical economic performance measures.

As listed, the economic performance of the Trump Administration surpassed that of the Obama Administration across all metrics except the growth in jobs, corporate profits, and the expansion in the federal deficit.

The president’s influence on the overall economy is limited with other factors such as global growth and Federal Reserve policy playing significant roles. Nonetheless, there is evidence that Trump’s economic policies of less regulation and lower taxes are pushing most economic metrics in a more favor-able direction than experienced during the 1.5 years before Trump took office.

Tuesday, July 24, 2018

Rural versus Urban Economies: Trade and Fed Policy Divide the Two

Just as the drunk with one hand in the fireplace and the other in the refrigerator is, on average, doing well, the agricultural and energy dependent states have been, on average, doing (performing) well. Currently however, state averages blend healthy growth in urban areas in each state with economic fatigue in the rural areas of the same states.

Between 2009 and 2013, Creighton's Rural Mainstreet survey typically indicated very healthy growth in rural areas that are dependent on agriculture and energy. During this time period, driven by the Federal Reserve's easy money policies that stimulated agriculture and energy exports, our surveys and government data tracked rural areas growing at brisk rates. During the Fed's expansion policies from 2009 to 2013, average yearly export growth in agriculture, food and oil products soared by 12.6%.

In 2014, the Fed ended Quantitative Easing, one of its major stimulus programs, which lowered long-term interest rates, and in 2015 began raising short-term interest rates. The end of the Fed interest rate stimulation programs, or easy money policies, raised the value of the U.S. dollar and restrained exports, particularly of agriculture and energy commodities. Thus, urban areas of the region, more dependent on manufacturing and housing, continued to expand while rural areas relying on agriculture and energy moved into negative territory.

During the Fed's less accommodative money polices, 2014-17, the average yearly export sales of agriculture, food, and oil products plummeted by 6.3%. As a result, employment in urban areas of the region over the past three years expanded by 4.1%, while employment in rural areas of the same states contracted by 0.3%.

The current trade skirmish/war has the potential to widen the economic performance gap between rural and urban areas. China's retaliatory tariffs on $34 billion worth of U.S. goods are directly aimed at rural regions of the nation that produce soybeans, cotton, rice, sorghum, beef, pork, dairy, nuts and produce. Not surprisingly, soybean prices have tumbled by $2 per bushel over the past week. Other ag commodity prices are under downward pressures.

Historically, the first casualty of a trade war is agriculture, and agriculturally dependent areas of the nation.
Ernie Goss

Thursday, June 14, 2018

Bitcoin: A Poker Chip or Money? Only 1 of 700 U.S. Businesses Accept Bitcoin

In 1999, prophetic economist Milton Friedman, winner of the 1976 Nobel prize in economics, said, "I think the internet is going to be one of the major forces for reducing the role of government. The one thing that's missing, but that will soon be developed, is a reliable e-cash."

Bitcoin, and other cryptocurrencies are attempting to fill Friedman's void. But can Bitcoin be regarded as money? Since its introduction in January 2009, the currency has expanded by 1,624,036% measured against the U.S. dollar rising from $0.04 to $7,638.62 on June 2, 2018.

During this same period of time, the price of gold (in U.S. dollars) climbed by 6.4%, and the value of the U.S. dollar against the Eurozone currency, the Euro, actually declined by 9.7%.

To serve as money, whether dollar, gold or Bitcoin, it must first be a medium of exchange, and second a store of value. How has each served these two functions?

Medium of exchange (acceptance): According to, 11,291 businesses accepted Bitcoin for payment of products and services at the end of 2017. Despite acceptance rates growing by 38% per year, less than one in 700 U.S. businesses accepted Bitcoin as a unit of payment at the end of 2017. Data on the acceptance of gold to purchase goods and services were not available, but 100% of U.S. businesses are legally required to accept the U.S. dollar for payment for goods and services.

Store of value: In 2017 against the Euro, the Bitcoin varied by 71.3% from its average, the U.S. dollar varied by 7.3% from its average, and gold deviated by only 0.1% from its average. Since the beginning of this year against the Euro, Bitcoin plummeted by 50.2%, the U.S. dollar sank by 3.2%, and gold rose by 2.6%. Clearly, Bitcoin from 2009 to 2018, was not a reliable store-of-value.

Verdict: Bitcoin, at this point-in-time, is more of a poker chip than money. However, the rapid acceptance of Bitcoin for payment will support its wide-spread use as money in the years ahead--just not likely in 2018, 2019 or 2020.

Ernie Goss

Thursday, May 17, 2018

California Solar Mandate Hurts Poor, Benefits Tesla: Requirement Boosts Housing and Electricity Prices

On May 9, 2018, the California Energy Commission (CEC) unanimously voted to require that builders install solar energy generation in all newly constructed homes in the state. The CEC estimated that the mandate would add approximately $10,000 to the price of a new home, and importantly, reduce the state's dependence on fossil fuels.

But how will displacing fossil fuel energy generation with solar affect electricity prices in the state? Currently, Californians pay the seventh highest electricity prices among the 50 states at $44.74 per million BTUs.

The latest U.S. Department of Energy data show that California obtains 52.3% of its electricity from natural gas, and 8.6% from solar. Replacing half of the state's natural gas electricity generation with solar energy would increase the state's electricity prices by approximately 26.7% to $56.48 per million BTUs. This would effectively boost the state's electricity prices to the second highest in the nation, other factors unchanged.

Above and beyond the anticipated positive impacts on the environment, the new policy will add billions to the coffers of corporations (i.e. crony capitalism).

In 2016, Tesla Corp. purchased SolarCity for $2.6 billion with the solar firm accounting for $1.1 billion of Tesla's 2017 revenues. Despite losing money for 59 of 60 quarters since incorporation in 2003 with accumulated losses of $5.0 billion, Tesla stock is currently selling for approximately $300 per share. It is clear that Tesla shareholders are expecting energy mandates, such as California's, to enrich them in the years ahead.
Ernie Goss

Friday, April 20, 2018

Federal Government Has Spending Problem: Taxes Expand, but Spending Soars

Since 1930, the federal government has spent approximately $90.2 trillion and collected $69.7 trillion in taxes, thus adding $20.5 trillion to the national debt, or approximately 104% of total 2017 U.S. output. Adding to the debt problem, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently estimated that the federal deficit will rise by more than $1 trillion yearly by 2020. Big Congressional spenders blame the shortfall on the 2017 tax reform package. But the CBO estimates that tax collections will grow by 10.2% over the next two years, while spending will soar by 13.1%. Thus, the true fiscal culprit is a spending explosion, not a lack of tax collections.

Central to the rising spending problem is the growth in programs such as food stamps (SNAP), Medicare and Medicaid. These three programs will skyrocket by 16.4% by 2020, or two and one-half times the expansion in the overall U.S. economy, to almost $1.4 trillion in 2020. Interest on the accumulated debt for these three programs will amount to almost $50 billion in 2020 alone.

Despite a robust and rapidly growing U.S. economy beginning in 2009 with unemployment rates dropping from 9.3% to 4.1%, the nation's food stamp program has expanded from 33,000,000 recipients in 2009 to 42,600,000 in 2017. This means that more than one of every seven Americans received food stamps in 2017 at a cost of $1,663 per household or $70.1 billion.

In an effort to slow the expansion in these three programs, President Trump last week issued an executive order calling for enforcement of existing work requirements and also reviewing current waivers and exemptions to working. However, since most households receiving food stamps contain a working adult, a work requirement will do little to reduce SNAP, or food stamp, expenditures. A better approach is to lower the income threshold beyond which households lose all, or portion of food stamps. Policymakers that advocate raising taxes to solve the debt problem are shooting at the wrong target.
Ernie Goss