The Job Creator's Tragedy

It's tough being a job creator these days. High taxes make it virtually impossible to hire more workers and an atmosphere of uncertainty is discouraging more investment in capital. Nobody would propose raising taxes on job creators under these conditions, right?

George Washington oversees the "car in the ditch" economy on Wall St / September 16th, 1920

That's the setting for the latest tragedy, that is. The job creator, ever heroic and noble, is accosted at all sides in his attempt to get the economy back on track. He confronts the Hydra of government and the armies of ignorance in his uncompromising quest to get the economy back on track. And this truly is a tragedy - our hero could perhaps be known as Supervacuo, and his tragic weakness - the fact that the job creator has absolutely no interest in creating jobs.

Nothing is as Sure as U.S. Debt Payments

For all the hype about fiscal deficits, the numbers don't add up to any significant threat to the U.S. economy: The U.S. is highly unlikely to default on its debts, and debts are mostly held by private and public U.S. firms and individuals.

As Ludwig von Mises famously argued, if you print money (or create loans) you'll get inflation, and whoever gets the money first benefits from it most. But whom does inflation hurt? In a global economy, it is the relative debt/capital holdings that matter. These are called "net account balance" and "capital account balance." The U.S. far supersedes other nations in terms of net debt and net capital. What will expanded government purchases do to this dynamic? It depends on where those purchases go. If we look at the current data from the U.S. Treasury, we see that U.S. debt goes primarily to U.S. interests: 70.7 percent of U.S. debt is owed to U.S. firms or individuals.

If we decide to take Rep. Paul Ryan's advice, we will be reducing government purchases that expand net capital in the U.S. and net debt to entities in the U.S. If we follow these plans, the U.S.'s place in the global economy will contract: Capital will leave the nation.

In a nation with fiat currency, the government can simply create money. The trend in government borrowing is a testament to this fact; as Binyamin Appelbaum noted on "NewsHour": "Nothing is as sure in financial markets than that the United States government will repay its debts. And so the government gets the cheapest rates available."

(Originally at Richmond Times Dispatch: Letters to the Editor: Dean Sayers: Nothing is as Sure as U.S. Dept Payments)

Economic Liberals Admit it: Capitalists Own Us

"Don't tax the rich, as they create jobs," so the mantra goes. However, this line of thinking betrays the underlying structure of production: namely, that the capitalist class has executive control over the means of production - control which is a concern of public policy, as Cato and the Heritage Foundation admit by requesting policy that regards its standing. Despite that fact, policy proposals argue for diminished public input. Indeed, history shows us that such control has always underlined this graft:^1,2,3,4

• Today, the Capitalist creates jobs by allowing the working class to use the means of production and sell their labor to him.
• Before that, the Lord created jobs by allowing the working class to use the means of production and give part of their labor to him.
• Before that, the Slaver created jobs by having the working class use the means of production and he (and it was always a man - patriarchy and all that) provided basic subsistence to them.

It has always been the narrow control over the means of production that allowed the interests of a group of oligarchs to consistently stand as a barrier to the production process. Interestingly, when these power structures shifted, it was always by diminishing the returns that older systems could replicate. The oft-revered Mises agrees: it is by diminishing the surplus value on capital investment that the same is disincentivized.² Is calling for safer structures for capitalism simply another incarnation of the tactical perpetuation of power? And does this activity fit the theoretical model of consumer-driven capitalism?

Glass-Steagall: Dead for 2 Decades and Counting

Where the Wealthy Meet to Engineer Crises

Clinton's 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall was hardly a repeal at all. In fact, it was just the dying breath of legislation that had been steadily eroded for decades. Following Alan Greenspan's pivotal moves for deregulation, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act merely confirmed in official canon what had been increasingly evident for the past 2 decades.

In 1996, Greenspan gave the Federal Reserve Board the green light to change the practices governing commercial bank holding companies. Under Glass-Steagall, they could only invest up to 5% in investment banks (due to the added risk). Greenspan quickly doubled this limit twice: first to 10%, and then to 25%. 8 months later, another decision opened the doors to insurance underwriting, allowing Traver's (under the management of Sandy Weill, who had already unsuccessfully tried to acquire JP Morgan) to acquire Solomon Brothers. Less than a year later, Traveler's merged with Citicorp.¹


Enter the beast: a bank which merged securities underwriting, insurance underwriting and commercial banking - precisely the amalgamation which ushered in the banking instability of the early 1900s - only this time, the publicians had a new motto: too big to fail. Perhaps more ominous is the name itself though: Citicorp, now Citigroup Inc., was once known as National City Bank, variously administered by James Stillman (who managed the bank in his retirement via discrete courier), Charles E Mitchell (touted in 1933: "Mitchell more than any 50 men is responsible for this stock crash" -Carter Glass).² Mitchell was also on the board of directors for American IG Farben³ (a pharmaceuticals combine which produced Zyclon B for the Nazis), which cartelized with Standard Oil New Jersey with the help of a 30 Million bond from National City Bank.^2,4

Thomas Jefferson: Marxist

"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed." Thomas Jefferson - Letter to James Madison (Oct. 28, 1785) / My Emphasis / HT:ExiledOnline.com

 Some highlights:

• Cites the disproportionate dispensation of property as the cause of misery
• Government would do well to increasingly "subdivide property" or break up this accumulation of property
• Supports progressive taxation
• Property rights "violate natural right" when it acts as a barrier between the working class and resources (a.k.a. capital)
• Earth is "common stock"
• Labor is a fundamental right

Obama's Graft and the Woeful State of Consumer Arbitration

I've occasionally cited industrial investment in party politics as the primary motivator in party competition (a point I've largely refined from my reading of Thomas Ferguson: Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition...). Yves Smith agrees - its donations that manage the presidential policy positions:

"Obama needs to raise an estimated $1 billion to win the 2012 election. He’s moved further and further to the right over the course of his Presidency. Why is he going to change gears and alienate one of his biggest donor groups by appointing Warren?"

Also, Yves points out to these startling statistics on the bias of consumer arbitration:

"An example we cited a few days ago, that of the settlement reached between the Minnesota attorney general and the National Arbitration Forum, illustrates this point. The [NAF] was so successful in stacking the deck on mandatory arbitrations in favor of its clients, big busineses, via the roster of arbitrators it chose that consumers won in only 4% of the cases." Yves Smith: Why Liberals Are Lame (Part 2)

Demand 101

Perhaps the right way to start off a new blog is to discuss one of the more obvious points that have been ignored in recent economic austerity measures. Namely, the issue of aggregate demand has been roundly ignored by the "clear cutter" majority who view any and all cuts to public service as the starting point for fiscal reform. Not only this, but the narrow focus on government regulation and spending has crippled the narrative of economic reporting in all major media outlets. In fact, any accumulation of wealth constitutes a game-changer in economic structure: not only the distribution, but the direction and velocity of exchange are all tied to this issue.

Aggregate demand in particular is critical to the structure of production and distribution, and then the disbursement of wages which provide a basis for - demand. As Nick Rowe points out, demand is the measure of growth (or lack thereof) in an economy:

"Quantity sold is whichever is less: quantity demanded; or quantity supplied. If there is excess supply of goods in aggregate, then realised sales of goods, and income from those realised sales, is demand-determined. And if people are unable to realise their plans to sell as many goods as they wish (if they face Clowerian quantity constraints) then their demand for goods will depend on their realised sales, which is demand-determined." - Rowe