Category Archives: Public Policy

Solution to Outsourcing

Outsourcing is a problem. There will be an estimated 406,000 US jobs outsourced in 2004.

Let me float a possible solution: Let everyone in, give everyone a tax ID card, and eliminate the minimum wage. Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, and let them work and pay taxes like everyone else. They would not be citizens yet, but they could live and work here legally.

These legal aliens would not be citizens, but should be offered some of the minimal public social services and protections, reserving the highest level for citizens. If they are in good standing after some number of years, then they would be eligible to become citizens.

Right now, illegal workers in America are willing to take unfair pay, receive no benefits, and tolerate unsafe conditions because they don’t pay taxes and they are afraid of being deported. Given legitimacy, they would demand reasonable pay, reasonable benefits, and reasonable working conditions, finally putting them on a fair playing field with the rest of us. And there is very likely a huge pent-up demand in this population to join organized labor.

With the increase in newly recognized labor tax revenues would increase substantially. And with this reorganization of immigration and the elimination of the minimum wage, businesses would rapidly grow and hire right here in the United States.

Elimination of the minimum wage would mean that employment would go WAY up. There would no longer be this structural unemployment at the bottom of the economic scale where a person is not yet worth more than a few dollars per hour, and so they can’t get a job and the experience they need to advance.

The standard of living for Americans would increase substantially. The fall in unemployment would reduce homelessness and poverty. Rapid business growth and the rise in domestic consumer spending would continue the cycle of increasing domestic labor force growth. Stocks and bonds would increase in value with the growth in businesses and business credit. Inflation would be pushed up by the increasing growth in businesses, employment, and immigration, but these are good reasons for inflation (easily controlled with the Federal Reserve overnight lending rate).

Do Deficits Matter? Does Inflation Matter?

Yes. Deficits cause inflation.

National debt 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 risk higher inflation, not be able to buy as many foreign goods, and see less international interest in our stock markets.

This fiscal year’s $477 billion deficit (Oct 1, 2003 – Oct 1, 2004) is the largest in US history.

Federal Budget Surplus or Deficit

Although the level of deficit is the largest in history, it is not the largest when measured as a percentage of GDP. The current deficit is about 4.3% of GDP. This is high by historic standards, but has been exceeded in 6 of the fiscal years since 1962.

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

If you are wealthy

We all like tax cuts that put money into our pockets today, but these tax cuts impact income, not wealth. Inflation, on the other hand, is a tax on wealth. If you are wealthy, then inflation will cost you a great deal in terms of spending power. You will be pushed into equity investments because fixed income and cash are hurt by inflation and rising interest rates. If you would be hurt by inflation, then deficits are your enemy.

If you are in debt

Inflation decreases the value of wealth and debt. Those who have money can buy less with it, and those who are in debt find it easier to pay off. This discounting of old wealth makes the “real” distribution of wealth less concentrated. It brings us all closer to each other by bringing us all closer to zero. If you are in debt, then inflation will reduce the burden, making it easier to pay off. If you are in debt, then inflation and deficits are your friend.

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.”

Winning the Peace, Continued

It is frustrating to watch the coalition fumble the war in Iraq. Let’s be as clear as possible about our goal: democracy of the Iraqi people, by the Iraqi people, and for the Iraqi people.

We should have let them know our intentions before we invaded. We should have encouraged a civil overthrow of Saddam before we invaded. We should have made our case to the Iraqi people even if that meant dropping leaflets before we dropped bombs. The communication would have been simple:

“Countries throughout the world are saddened to watch Saddam Hussein murdering and intimidating the Iraqi people. A new government must come to power or these countries will form a coalition to invade Iraq and assist in the election of a new government. Saddam Hussein must step down from power and an election must be held for new local and national leaders. Otherwise the coalition will invade and organize the election. Elections must be held on or before January 1, 2004. The countries in the coalition look forward to a time when the Iraqi people can be free from tyranny.”

Of course whatever communication we decided to use, it should have been translated into all the appropriate languages.

If the deadline comes and passes, the Iraqi people will know our purpose. We should strike only at Saddam. We should continue until he is captured or killed. We should openly bribe and coerce our way to him before we attempt to kill him. Once he is killed or captured, we should have announced the election immediately. (See Winning the Peace).

Without this communication, the Iraqi people see only the invasion of a foreign power. They may not understand that our purpose is their purpose, but instead they see us as the enemy. This is a top-level strategic mistake.

By approaching Iraq as a war instead of as a revolution, we have become one side of that war. In a revolution, it is the people who fight for change, and the coalition would simply be there to support the people.

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.