Concerns that (1) growth in developing countries could worsen the US terms of trade and (2) that increased US trade with developing countries will increase US wage inequality both implicitly reflect the assumption that goods produced in the United States and developing countries are close substitutes and that specialization is incomplete. In this paper we show on the contrary that there are distinctive patterns of international specialization and that developed and developing countries export fundamentally different products, especially those classified as high tech….

Which translated means, the US, one of their main agents in their research, has an economic dynamism (here & here)which results in the US never directly competing with other countries’ lower paid labor:

…Judged by export shares, the United States and developing countries specialize in quite different product
categories that, for the most part, do not overlap. Moreover, even when exports are classified in the
same category, there are large and systematic differences in unit values that suggest the products made
by developed and developing countries are not very close substitutes—developed country products
are far more sophisticated….

& this of course isn’t the only research making such conclusions (here & here).

But that’s not all.  We’ve seen historically that creating obstacles to free trade can hurt us severely (here):

One of the major causes of the Depression was Congress’s passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which was signed into law on June 17, 1930. Smoot-Hawley placed tariffs on more than 20,000 imported goods. It halted the recovery from the 1929 downturn and resulted in retaliatory tariffs from U.S. trading partners and a decline in U.S. imports and exports of more than 50 percent….

Though not all would say cause (here):

“The best estimates are that the multiplier is roughly 2. In that case, real GDP would have declined by about 3.4% between 1929 and 1931 as a result of the decline in real exports. Real GDP actually declined by about 16.5% between 1929 and 1931, so the decline in real exports can account for only about 21% of the total decline in real GDP.”

Irregardless, the research and economist communities agree on the benefits of free trade (here):

A 1990 survey of economists employed in the United States found that more than 90 percent generally agreed with the proposition that the use of tariffs and import quotas reduced the average standard of living….

Congress’ answer to all of this? A trade war with China (here):

The Democrat-backed bill passed by 348 to 79, and targets countries that hold down the value of their currencies, as many accuse China of doing….

The Senate’s answer?  A trade war with China (here): 

The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee said Wednesday that the upper chamber is “poised” to legislation meant to hammer China for its currency policies…

To paraphrase an axiom:  With economic heavy weights like this as friends, who need enemies… but I’m sure there’s no way they’ll screw up health care, right?

The President? A trade war with China…. sort of no.  While he’s pushing China just as other presidents have (here):

The Obama Administration believes that China needs to take steps on rectifying its currency value, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said….

He hasn’t stated he would sign anything and other administration officials are pushing different views (here):

Treasury Department Secretary Timothy Geithner said there was “no risk” of a global currency war during a wide ranging interview with Charlie Rose Tuesday evening….

Intelligently, he’s keeping his options open in this very way.  Though I’m not sure I want to bet that he continues down the road of economics considering his approval ratings., but a smart move overall.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, extending all the Bush tax cuts would add $2.3 trillion to the total 2018 debt. The single biggest step our government could take this year to address the structural deficit would be to let the tax cuts expire. Such a credible commitment to long-term fiscal sustainability should reduce interest rates today, helping to stimulate the economy….

According to Mr. Johnson, even though critics say letting the tax cuts expire would retard growth, that money could be used more effectively (he continues):

…If the goal is to boost growth and employment immediately, it would be better to let the tax cuts expire and dedicate some of the increased revenue to real stimulus programs…

You mean, stimulus programs like “Cash for Clunkers” (NBER working paper here)?

…Our empirical strategy exploits variation across U.S. cities in ex-ante exposure to the program as measured by the number of “clunkers” in the city as of the summer of 2008. We find that the program induced the purchase of an additional 360,000 cars in July and August of 2009. However, almost all of the additional purchases under the program were pulled forward from the very near future; the effect of the program on auto purchases is almost completely reversed by as early as March 2010 – only seven months after the program ended….

Or how about the stimulus plan we were told would keep unemployment rates to 8% (DA Post here), while they currently hover around 10% (here):

…in August, and the unemployment rate was about unchanged at 9.6 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.

Or…maybe the government takeover/purchase of GM (post here):

…in reality, the US Treasury through pressure by the Obama administration spent $50 billion dollars to own 61% of the shares.  With roughly 500 million shares available, this means the US government current owns 305 million shares.  At the current stock price today of .375 dollars, their 50 billion dollar investment is worth roughly 115 million dollars….

Or maybe controlling healthcare costs by passing a bill no one understands…. which has already started failing as insurers have already started raising rates more than goverment predictions (post here):

…The economics and logic of these required rate increases are undeniable.  If someone, in this case the government through force of law, tells a private business that they must increase their spending, under force of law, some, if not all, of those new expenditures will be passed on to consumers…

So to sum up Mr. Johnson, even though evidence, extremely recent evidence, demonstrates what economic thinkers have told us for centuries:  government can not create jobs – the problem doesn’t lie with government spending, but instead in allowing people to keep their own money.

I don’t know when we start understanding what Albert Einstein expressed so eloquently so many years ago, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” but let’s hope it’s soon.

For more, excellent Cato article The Stimulus: The Government Job Creation Myth

…This seemingly paradoxical view is based on several overlapping strands of research in economics as it pertains to development, history, technology, business expansion, and new-firm formation. According to this view, entrepreneurs at work in the economy – in finance, high tech, manufacturing, services, and beyond – are constantly experimenting, creating new business models, techniques, and technologies that upend the established order of things.

Some new technologies and innovations are genuine improvements and are long-lasting welfare enhancers. But others are the basketball equivalent of pump fakes – they look like the real deal and prompt market actors to leap hastily into action, only to realize later that their bets were wrong.

Given this dynamic, markets are unpredictable, prone to booms and busts, characterized by bouts of exuberance that are rational or irrational only in hindsight.  But markets are also the only reliable mechanism for sorting out this messy process quickly. In spite of the booms and busts, markets drive genuine long-run innovation and wealth creation.

Not as eloquently as they did, I wrote about this earlier in the year (here):

…the dynamic system of the United States might have felt more pain that other countries during this crisis, but due to the mostly decentralized economic model, we will recover more quickly than most…

It then seems for most people to become a question of risk adversity.  Do we allow for individual freedom and understand that sometimes failure is a part of the process?  Or do we constantly attempt to control individual behavior for fear of potential negative consequences?

Only if we first believe in the premise that by trading freedom for stability, we actually get stability.  The CSMonitor article continues:

…When governments attempt to impose order on this chaotic and inherently risky process, they immediately run up against two serious dangers.

The first is that they strangle new innovations before they can emerge. Thus proposals for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, a systemic risk regulator, a public health insurance plan, a green jobs policy, or any attempt at top-down planning may do more harm than good.

The second danger has to do with the nature of political economy. Politics creates its own kind of innovators who can be as destabilizing to markets as market actors themselves – but in far more pernicious ways.

Economists call these political entrepreneurs “rent-seekers.”…

…This gets to the key difference between markets and governments. When innovation-driven excesses and imbalances are recognized in the marketplace, the system can correct itself quickly. This is less the case when government policy failure occurs.

Because political failure is less publicly tolerable than market failure, the temptation becomes for policymakers to avoid acknowledging their role in creating or perpetuating problems.  Or they double down on bad bets. So rather than recognize the government’s central role in the housing boom and bust and quickly changing its ways, we see the federal policy apparatus continuing to throw good money after bad in the mortgage market and on Wall Street….

I wrote about this “doubling down”  (here):

…For those playing the home game, this means we are taking a problem caused by excessive credit and government incentives and trying to fix it by:

1. Preventing the normal contraction that needs to happen by artificially propping up failed business and bad home purchasing decisions.
2. Keep money cheap by keeping interest rates very low.
3. Then, repeat the same process that got you to the recession in the first place by incentivizing the market to buy a commodity (housing) which is still overvalued in some places….

…I’m not really into prediction making as it’s obviously fraught with so many problems, but I’ll never understand how the solution to cheap money and an over investment of housing, is to keep money cheap and incentivize home buying…

As historically known, the vast majority of centralized government intrusions into free markets and free people has led to disastrous consequences.  NBER research suggests that two of the reasons for the current global economic crisis are due to unfree markets:

…The inability of emerging economies to absorb savings through domestic investment and consumption due to inadequate national financial markets and difficulties in enforcing financial contracts; the currency controls motivated by immediate national objectives;…

Everywhere we look objectively, freedom gives us more of everything.  Do you want to fix healthcare?  Using the government will likely lead to higher rates and more control, using individual freedom however doesn’t cost much as has been proven in other avenues such as food.  Something I think is just as important as healthcare, but been left to the market unlike health care.

& the market has responded.  Food costs as a percentage of disposable income has decreased from 23.4% in 1929, to just 9.6% in 2009 (here).

Meanwhile health care costs continue to increase with government regulation.  In just the past 5 years spending on health care as a percentage of GDP has continue to go up and is projected on that trend still.  In 2005 spending was 15.9% of GDP whereas in 2009 is it 16.9% and projected to be 19.5% in 2017  (here).

It seems that the overwhelming majority of evidence suggests to honestly help the most needy, freedom is not only a moral good, but a requirement for anything approaching success…. yet what seems to be an irrational fear of “economic crisis” many people can’t see the forest for the trees.

…The bank based in North Carolina said it would repurchase the preferred shares issued to the US Treasury as part of TARP, but would not immediately buy back the warrants, or options to buy additional shares.

“This is good news that the bank can get out of the TARP and can stop having to answer to public and government criticism,” said Jon Ogg at 24/7 Wall Street….

The policies BoA is trying to escape from includes restrictions on the top 25 individuals in the company including the CEO.  I and many others wrote about what a disastrous policy from the new administration this truly was (here):

…Even without bothering with the fact that the government is not in any position to understand what kind of compensation any single employee should have, this is still a radical and arbitrary move that if continued can work to destabilize the economy.

…this decision is an anathema to a free society breaking not only the contract rights of ordinary citizens, but also violating all individuals by pushing a blatant ex  post facto punishment…

Just two days earlier, I also wrote about BoA’s issues with getting a new CEO hired under all the government restrictions (here).  Indeed, at least four potential candidates have simply stated they don’t want the job.

Now, if these policies were actually designed to do this, incentivize those companies with TARP money to pay it back as quickly as possible, bravo!

Taking the language from the administration I doubt it, but it’s always good news when a major business under intense governmental scrutiny shows the quickest to its financial health is to remove the additional scrutiny.

This also  parallels with a recent NBER Paper on the global economic recession (abstract here, full paper purchase price $5).  In the full paper they try to prove the thesis that the main problem with the global economy is that investment money from developed countries should be flowing into developing countries, but instead developing countries such as India and China have investment income flowing into developed countries like the US & Britain.

& This seems pretty intuitive.  In general, investment money will flow to inefficient markets, industries, and companies in an immature market.  The reason is easy – it’s more and faster bang for the buck.  However, in a mature economy like the US and as we move forward in time, there are less and less efficiencies to be gained through anything other than new technologies.

In an immature market it’s the opposite case.  Industries and companies are new.  Small amounts of investment money can return great efficiency gains and therefore monetary gains.

Some people try to blame us citizens, consumerism, and capitalism in general for this failure, but that’s actually the opposite of the truth as well.  The reason Chinese citizens save so much more of their disposable income than do US citizens isn’t because they are more frugal, but have less real options to invest domestically even though major efficiency gains are theoretically possible.

As the abstract states:

…The inability of emerging economies to absorb savings through domestic investment and consumption due to inadequate national financial markets and difficulties in enforcing financial contracts; the currency controls motivated by immediate national objectives; and the inability of the US economy to adjust to the perverse incentives caused by huge money inflows leading to a breakdown of checks and balances at various financial institutions. The financial crisis in the US was but the first acute symptom that had to be treated. A sustainable recovery will only occur when the natural flow of capital from developed to developing nations is restored….

This doesn’t mean the US doesn’t have fault – so long as we continue to allow the government to write blank checks of any amount without respect to the deficit and ignoring huge unfunded liabilities such as MediCare – we seem to be on a sure path to a back slide.  I’m not really into prediction making as it’s obviously fraught with so many problems, but I’ll never understand how the solution to cheap money and an over investment of housing, is to keep money cheap and incentivize home buying (here).

Either way, it’s good news for BoA, with investors showing their interest with heavy after hours trading (here).

Earlier this year, against all basic free market principles the Obama Administration through the Treasury Department started setting up compensation boards (CNN):

WASHINGTON (CNN) — An amendment in the $787 billion economic stimulus package passed by Congress Friday would severely restrict bonuses and other forms of compensation for top executives at companies receiving federal bailout money….

Due to all the negative publicity surrounding the government’s handing over billions of dollars in tax payer dollars to corporations which deserved to fell, Senator Dodd explains:

…”The decisions of certain Wall Street executives to enrich themselves at the expense of taxpayers have seriously undermined public confidence in efforts to stabilize the economy. American taxpayers deserve better,” Dodd said….

Now it might just be me, but I’m not sure Wall Street executives are allowed to vote on appropriations bills and then force the treasury to distribute the funds as they see fit.  It seems Mr. Dodd is blaming Wall Street for the government’s failure to handle the crisis correctly.

With all logic aside though, they went forward.  Not only did they seek to limit overall compensation of the highest paid, but asked for refunds from bonuses already given – one provision in the bill:

…The secretary of the Treasury must review past compensation paid to the top 25 employees of TARP recipients and seek reimbursements “if those payments were contrary to the public interest or inconsistent with the purposes of the [stimulus package] or the TARP,” according to Dodd’s statement….

& People everywhere rejoiced…. I mean complained.  In what was an obviously anti-capitalist move sure to do more damage than any political good it might bring about, people everywhere spoke up (examples here, here, & here), including NBER (abstract here – paper costs $5):

…Important facts about compensation are that: the compensation distribution is highly skewed; each year, a sizeable fraction of chief executives lose money; the use of equity grants has increased; the income accruing to CEOs from the sale of stock has increased; regardless of the measure we adopt, compensation responds strongly to innovations in shareholder wealth; measured as dollar changes in compensation, incentives have strengthened over time, measured as percentage changes in wealth, they have not changed in any appreciable way….

Even little ole me could see this as a negative and wrote about this here just a month or so ago (here):

…Even without bothering with the fact that the government is not in any position to understand what kind of compensation any single employee should have, this is still a radical and arbitrary move that if continued can work to destabilize the economy.

…this decision is an anathema to a free society breaking not only the contract rights of ordinary citizens, but also violating all individuals by pushing a blatant ex  post facto punishment….

& now we have exactly what was shown through economic analysis and basic logic to be true (@Bloomberg):

Nov. 23 (Bloomberg) — Bank of America Corp.’s board may extend its search for a permanent new chief executive officer into 2010 if directors can’t settle on a candidate in the next three days, according to people familiar with the matter….

…At least four external candidates, including Citigroup Inc. director Michael O’Neill, rebuffed approaches….

…That’s narrowing the field and giving the board “an incredibly tough job,” said Michael Holland, who oversees more than $4 billion as chairman of Holland & Co. in New York. “For people who have choices, it’s hard to figure out why someone would take this job.”…

Is it now time to stop calling obvious results  (Un)?intended Consequences…