Category Archives: Economics

A Briefing on US Energy

Quotes below are from the Energy Information Administration of the US Department of Energy.

“The United States of America is the world’s largest energy producer, consumer, and net importer. It also ranks eleventh worldwide in reserves of oil, sixth in natural gas, and first in coal.”

The US is becoming increasingly dependent on imported oil compared to domestic sources. Over the last 20 years as demand has risen and US production has fallen, crude oil imports have increased to make up the difference.

“Total 2004 petroleum demand is projected to grow by 420,000 barrels per day, or 2.1%, to an average 20.4 million barrels per day.”

“The United States averaged total gross oil (crude and products) imports of an estimated 12.2 MMBD during 2003, representing around 62% of total U.S. oil demand.”

“With the rebound in world oil prices since March 1999, U.S. crude production fell slightly in 2002 and 2003, and is now at 50-year lows.”

US Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) have been increasing as US production is decreasing and prices are rising.

“In mid-November 2001, President Bush directed the Department of Energy (DOE) to fill the SPR to its capacity of 700 million barrels in order to ‘maximize long-term protection against oil supply disruptions.'”

But while our oil is increasingly coming from foreign sources, oil is shrinking as a percentage of our economic picture. Demand for oil is increasing at a slower rate than US GDP. Accordingly, emissions follow this pattern.

“U.S. carbon emissions per dollar of GDP have been declining steadily since at least 1980.”

This is an important trend because the US environmental impact is a growing point of international pressure.

“The United States, with the world’s largest economy, is also the world’s largest single source of anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gas emissions.”

“On March 27, 2001, the Bush administration declared that the United States had “no interest” in implementing or ratifying the Kyoto treaty limiting greenhouse gas emissions, but that it would pursue other ways of addressing the climate change issue.”

This rejection was not completely in denial of the international environmental issues, though.

“In February 2002, the Bush Administration released its proposed alternative to the Kyoto Treaty, calling for significant reductions in emissions of various pollutants (mercury, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide). The program, known as the “Clear Skies Initiative,” would utilize a “cap and trade” system which would allow companies to trade emissions credits. In addition, the Bush Administration envisions reductions in U.S. “greenhouse gas intensity” — the amount of greenhouse gases emitted per dollar of GDP — by 18% over 10 years.”

This proposed alternative is likely to be achievable because the trends of GDP growth and U.S. carbon emissions growth have been in place since 1980.

For the electric power sector, coal-fired plants accounted for 53% of generation, nuclear 21%, natural gas 15%, hydroelectricity 7%, oil 3%, geothermal and “other” 1%.”

Surprisingly, electricity demand is shrinking relative to the economy as well. GDP is growing faster than electricity demand.

“Total U.S. annual electricity demand grew only slightly — about 0.8% — during 2003. For 2004, electricity demand is expected to increase about 2% from 2003 levels, driven by accelerated growth in the economy and weather-related increases in the first and the fourth quarters.”

And even though GDP per kilowatthour is growing, electricity prices have not reflected that change.

“Electricity prices in the United States fell every year between 1993 and 1999, but this trend reversed in 2000, 2001, and 2003.”

The Myth of Negative Sentiment

Today’s article in Barrons: “The Myth of Negative Sentiment” took the position that negative sentiment in the investor community is a myth, and that the media is unnecessarily sugarcoating economic problems.

I think the article missed the point.

The sugarcoating is not for the investor crowd, it is for everyone else. Investors stand to do well as we move toward an “ownership society“, but the non-investor class is disenfranchised and falling further behind. I’m talking about the concentration of wealth and the distribution of consumption.

The article talks about how investors are heavily invested in equities rather than cash, and how this is a signal of investor optimism. This is true; it is because dividend and capital gains rates have been cut in half (or more) and interest rates on cash accounts are almost zero. Why hold cash when the yield curve is steep and tax rates are so favorable? After-tax investment returns look very promising.

But if you live paycheck-to-paycheck (Barron’s readers might not have any contact with these people…) then your prospects are grim. In the past, debtors could count on inflation to depreciate their past sins. But these days, deflation threatens to put them deeper in debt while giving the wealthy more buying power. Meanwhile social services are being cut and the lions share of tax breaks are going to people making capital gains and receiving dividend income. For them, the whole country is becomming a company town.

The issue is not negative sentiment on the part of investors, but rather social depression. And that is no myth.

Taxes and Concentration of Wealth

The concentration of wealth plays a role in economic growth and employment, crime rates, and just about every aspect of American society. The primary tools government uses to manipulate the concentration of wealth are tax and healthcare policies. In this article, we focus on how recent tax policy is reshaping the concentration of wealth.

Policies that distribute wealth and power more broadly are sometimes called “socialist” by those who argue against them. Similarly, policies that concentrate wealth and power too much are sometimes called “oppressive” or “fascist”. Both of these names are misleading. In a capitalist democracy, a wide range of policy decisions can set the stage for incentives and fair business; we’re still working to find the best balance.

Capital gains income tax:

Under President Bush’s tax cuts, investors are now paying 15% tax on income from capital gains. Meanwhile, income from work is taxed about twice as much, depending on your marginal rate. The tax code is effectively encouraging income from capital gains by giving back half the tax on that type of income. It’s not clear to me that the government should be in the business of encouraging one type of income over another, but if we do then we should be encouraging income from work. Investors may argue that they have already earned this money and paid taxes on it so it should not be taxed again. This is true; remember that you only pay tax on the new income. The original amount you invested is not considered income and is not taxed again.

Estate taxes:

Estate taxes were created along with child labor laws, voting rights for women, and the establishment of an income tax during the Progressive Era (1900-1918). President Bush is eliminating the estate tax, and has proposed to make this tax cut permanent in the coming term. The question of whether we should we maintain estate taxes or eliminate them is a subjective question. Rather than make this point myself, let me defer to the words of President Franklin Roosevelt: “Great accumulations of wealth cannot be justified on the basis of personal and family security. In the last analysis such accumulations amount to the perpetuation of great and undesirable concentration of control in a relatively few individuals over the employment and welfare of many, many others. Such inherited economic power is as inconsistent with the ideals of this generation as inherited political power was inconsistent with the ideals of the generation which established our Government.” President Bush’s agenda for estate taxes is to reduce the estate tax over time to nothing, and in the next 4 years, his agenda is to make this permanent. If this happens, families of vast wealth will effectively be an elite class, removed from the rest of Americans by the virtue of birthright.

Dividend income tax:

Bush’s economic agenda for the next 4 years also includes eliminating the tax on dividend income (http://www.gop.com/GOPAgenda/AgendaPage.aspx?id=2). If this is passed, those who receive dividend payments will not pay any taxes on that income, giving them an after-tax raise of more than 50% (35% tax leaves 65%. Going from 65 to 100 is a 53.8% gain). That personal income will no-longer be contributing to the government revenues, and the shortfall will accumulate against us all in the form of budget deficit. If stopping the double-taxation of dividends is the goal, the correct way to deal with it would be to make dividend payments a deductible expense just like any other cost of doing business.

These recent tax cuts have been very effective in getting money back into the hands of Americans, but have put us into growing debt. The budget deficit is important because the national debt must someday be paid down, with interest. This is one of the most important factors that determines the value of the US dollar and international confidence in American investments. With extensive history and other nations as examples, we clearly see that as the debt gets bigger, we will experience inflation, not be able to buy as many foreign goods, and see less international interest in our stock markets. The U.S. budget deficit in 2004 will hit a record $445 billion, according to the White House. Not only would this be a record deficit, but also an unprecedented fall from record surplus.

Federal Budget Surplus or Deficit

Data source: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

Instead, if income from all sources is simply taxed as income, then tax policy will be much more fair and government revenues will be higher. On this point, the Democratic agenda to roll back such specific portions of the recent tax cuts seems right. The timing, however, is sensitive: increasing taxes during economic recession can make problems worse.

In any event, the Federal Reserve (not tax policy) is the primary mechanism for managing economic recession. If the federal government uses changes in the tax code to manipulate the economic cycles, then it is acting as a backseat driver to the Federal Reserve. In addition to the complication this adds for the FED in determining the funds rate, it also makes it much harder for citizens and businesses to plan and prepare taxes.

The concentration of wealth threatens our nation. The poverty rate was 12.5% of all Americans in 2003. The numbers are even worse for children: 17.6% of Americans under the age of 18 are living in poverty (http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/income03/prs04asc.html). I hope you will agree that these numbers are too big. These Americans often disappear in our society and are not very well represented in politics: they may not apply for jobs or vote, they often do not have health insurance, they often do not pay taxes on the money they do earn; they hide from the system because the system demands taxes that they can’t afford to pay. Tax policy is exacerbating this problem and should be made fair in the ways I described above. Once the downward spiral of joblessness and poverty can be broken, the upward spiral of employment and fulfillment can begin. Increasing the workforce and reducing structural poverty is clearly in the interest of America.

US Foreign Policy

Since the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992, The European Union has grown to 25 member-nations in a series of enlargements. It is now preparing for the next enlargement, adding 3 more countries by 2007. They have merged their currencies and are aligning their laws and governance procedures. This is a big deal. I think that Europe is going to give America a run for the position of global nation of hope, honor, currency strength, and political influence. There is a similar story developing in Asia. The only way to be strong in this century is to be Good.

American foreign policy is always a balance between idealism and reality: the idealism of freedom and cooperation, the reality of deception, oppression, and violence. We could spend all of our time and energy fortifying America against attack. We could also spend all of our time and energy aiding the oppressed. Where we find our balance is up to the administration, and you chose the administration. Both political parties are generally well balanced in their approaches to these issues. Democrats generally lean more toward aiding the oppressed in an effort to help them rise up for their own freedom and lawfulness, while Republicans generally lean toward fortifying America and targeting those who threaten America or support cultures of oppression. Balance is the key.

Freedom is worth fighting for. We should fight to protect our own freedoms, and we should help others as they fight for their freedoms. We should use every tool at our disposal in an order that places killing as a last resort. Political negotiation should start with tariffs, trade, and travel restrictions, include secondary trading partners, and increasingly squeeze to influence positive political change. If it becomes necessary, our military should be agile and overwhelmingly capable. Such scaled pressure should be used to influence international labor law, weapons programs, terrorist regimes, and the broad range of foreign policy negotiations. We should have long term strategies for every nation, and short term tactics that reflect the realities of the times.

Retirement savings reform

Company sponsored retirement programs are costly to administer, and provide employment benefits in the form of tax reduction. By providing employment benefits in this manner, government is subsidizing the businesses that submit to the administrative costs. Large companies can more easily afford this administrative cost. The intention to reward workers becomes a reward for working in a larger organization. When workers change or lose their jobs, they must transfer their 401(k)s and in some cases (when they are hired by a small firm or are not immediately re-hired) are no longer eligible for tax advantaged retirement savings. This compounds the pain of unemployment by effectively increasing the person’s tax rate. Finally, 401(k) rollovers have created an entire bureaucratic industry, tapping the productive force of many bright and hard-working people.

There is a simple solution: Replace 401(k) plans by increasing the amount all individuals can contribute to their traditional IRAs. And if a company chooses to administer it, a percentage of every check could be directly deposited. This change would help to level the economic playing field for small American businesses, eliminate the harsh tax penalty upon unemployment, and simplify the financial accounts of most working Americans. 401(k) plans can already be rolled into IRAs, so conversion from legacy policies would be painless.

What about the government’s intention to reward workers? The financial incentive of a pay check is designed to be just that, but additional reward might include a federal income tax holiday for the first $50k in earned income, for example.

Special cases of inconvenience and frustration are many, I’m sure, but consider the case of a married couple, both of whom work. One employer provides a 401(k) plan and the other does not. Saving equally, the person with a 401(k) takes home more money. This means that in order to save equally, one person is structurally required to subsidize the other. Adding structural financial conflict into marriage should be avoided as a matter of policy.