Rate:
Share
Views: 1960
Text Size:
Comments (10)

Obama's Recession Spending Strategy

Is More Debt Really a Solid Foundation?

By Peter Schiff
Monday, April 20th, 2009

-Editor's Note:

At Wealth Daily we never trust a claim of consensus. . . especially not when it comes from a politician.

Today we bring you a guest column from our friend Peter Schiff, President of Euro Pacific Capital. Here Peter takes a critical look at President Obama's spending plan and the market whiplash that could result from a debt-fueled short-term recovery.

Good investing,

brian

Brian Hicks
Publisher, Wealth Daily

Not All Economists Agree

In a speech this week summarizing his administration's economic policies, President Obama grossly overstated the support these policies enjoy by claiming, "economists on the left and right agree that the last thing the government should do during a recession is cut back on spending." There are a great many economists who were surprised to learn that, apparently, they now agree with the President.

Reading straight from the Keynesian playbook, Obama justified the creation of multi-trillion dollar deficits by asserting that the government must fill the spending void left by the contraction of consumer and business spending. As one of those mythical economists who do not agree with the President, I argue that it is precisely this type of boneheaded thinking that got us into this mess, and it's the reason we are now headed for an inflationary depression.

We do not need, nor should we attempt, to replace lost demand. As Obama himself pointed out in the same speech, Americans have been borrowing and spending too much money. These actions created artificial demand, underpinned by the illusion of real wealth in overvalued stock and real estate markets. Given his intelligence and rhetorical training, it is hard to fathom how President Obama cannot notice the inherent contradiction in his argument.

While Obama commended millions of American families for making the hard choices to reduce spending, pay down debt and replenish savings, he later outlined the government's intention to spend every American household deeper into debt, thereby undermining all the good that personal austerity would have otherwise produced.

Obama also made the clear-eyed observation that the foundation of our economy was unsound and that a sturdier one needed to be laid. To do this, he even asserted that we need to import less and export more. This has been one of my fundamental points. Our economy is unsound precisely because it is built on a foundation of consumer debt. Instead of spending for today, we need to invest for tomorrow. However, we cannot save more unless we spend less. Production requires capital, which only comes into existence when resources are not consumed.

However, by interfering with this process, Obama prevents the very transformation he acknowledges must take place. When the government spends what individuals save, private investment is crowded out. Society is deprived of the benefits such savings would otherwise have brought about. How can we lay a solid foundation if the government takes away all our cement?

Advertisement

Bull Market. . .

Bear Market. . .

It doesn't matter!

No matter which way the market is heading, this is the only place to land

20 double-digit gains in one year - GUARANTEED!

Click here now. . .


More Debt is Not A Solid Foundation

This brings up an oft-repeated, but oft-forgotten, point: government does not have any money of its own. It only has what it takes from the rest of us. If individuals repay their debts, but their government takes on additional debt, we are all simply swimming against the tide. All forward progress is lost as private debt is replaced by public debt, which must be repaid by private individuals. Whatever gains individuals hope to achieve are negated by the higher taxes or increased inflation necessary to repay their share of a larger national debt.

Obama claims that much of the additional debt is not going to finance consumption, but rather "critical investment". This is a vain hope. In the first place, much of what he categorizes as investment, such as additional spending on education, is not investment at all. Yes, an educated workforce is important, but throwing more government money at education will do nothing to achieve this goal. Spending money on education and calling it an investment squanders resources that otherwise would have financed real investments. In the second place, to the extent some government money is invested, those investments will likely be less efficient than those the private sector might otherwise have financed. There is absolutely no evidence that governments have the foresight or incentives to make investments that facilitate real economic growth. "Five year plans" didn't work in the Soviet Union and they won't work here. If the government simply builds bridges to nowhere, society gains nothing.

If we are going to rebuild our economy on a solid foundation, the market, not the government, needs to draw the plans. When private citizens invest their own capital, those who invest wisely are rewarded with profits, while those who do not are punished with losses. Bad investments are therefore abandoned, with capital reallocated to more successful ventures. Conversely, when governments invest money, these checks and balances do not exist. There is nothing to correct bad investments, as losses are endlessly subsidized by taxpayers. In fact, the more a government plan fails, the more it tends to be funded in the hope that additional resources will finally achieve success. Obama himself proves this by allocating still more funds to government-run schools and student loan subsidies. Other examples, such as Amtrak, the New York MTA, the U.S. Postal Service, Fannie/Freddie, and countless others, prove this process is never-ending - until perhaps the bureaucracy collapses under its own weight.

When it comes to government making tough choices, Obama talks a good game, but refuses to actually make any. However, once the dollar finally begins its collapse, he will have no choice but to match his rhetoric with action. It's unfortunate that we cannot make these tough choices on our own terms, rather than waiting for our creditors to force our hand.

Peter Schiff

P.S. For a more in depth analysis of our financial problems and the inherent dangers they pose for the U.S. economy and U.S. dollar, read my newest book "The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets." Click here to order your copy now.

You can also download my free Special Report, "Peter Schiff's Five Favorite Investment Choices for the Next Five Years," at http://www.europac.net/report/index_fivefavorites.asp.

 






Rate this article:
 
     Current Rating:  
Article RatingArticle RatingArticle RatingArticle RatingArticle Rating (10 votes)

Comment on this Article


Comments:

Comment by Richard Crane on 2009-04-20
Obama is a Marxist bent on breaking this economy and then joining up with first suitor, I suspect China since they are also Communistic; where is our representative conservative dissent over and above the Tea Party people?

Krank
Comment by Rant on 2009-04-20
This sounds like just a rant about President Obama's agenda. I am social worker who has worked with the homeless and can tell you that this division between the rich and poor will not continue or there will be blood in the streets. Get off of it, and start calling him President Obama because he is the President of the United States.
Comment by tom roberts on 2009-04-20
Oh My Country 'tis of Thee...
I have heard enough of how the private sector is better than the gov't at anything/everything. I don't think Uncle Sam's Discount Trader's were working "Duh Street".

The trader's were churning trades and passing on worthless paper to each other in the greatest con game known to man. I'll gladly give a you a dollar for this worthless paper today if you'll give me two for it tomorrow. Honest people trusted their money managers and got hosed for the commisssions. A man with a briefcase can steal way more than any man with a gun.

I'm disappointed in the approach you're taking here Peter. At least this Administration is trying which is better than can be said for the past group. Come down to street level with the working class again and see how it looks from down here.

There is no neat quick efficient moneyed upperclass turnaround for this one brother. The haves milked the cow dry...finally. Stop whining and start helping. How many calls are you from Bernanke, Sommers, G-man and the rest. Not many I'm sure. You got a better plan then get it to them. Now.

Yours in brotherhood. Tom R
Comment by Ted on 2009-04-20
President Obama indeed is bringing change. His Democratic friends have long been criticized as "tax and spend" liberals. Obama has changed that by 180 degrees. He is clearly a "Spend and Tax" liberal, or Socialist, or... His unprecedented spending, by his own admission, will be followed by heavy taxation, in the form of cap and trade and all sorts of new taxes on the "rich," who already pay 80% of the taxes in this country under the "unfair" Bush tax cuts. Obama will justify such increased taxes on our government's greatly increased debt and, of course, the claim that he is really a fiscally responsible President.
Comment by ijrosso on 2009-04-20
While Peter has some things correct, his conclusions are totally wrong -- its back to restoring the Old Order which got us into this problem in the first place.
"Small government" he advocates, means back to pre Great Depression days -- dog-eat-dog, "do nothing" policies. This is absurd -- action can rectify problems not inaction. Governments are capable of solving problems which private enterprise cannot. But restoring "corporate capitalism" does not help the common working class.

The problems are so-called free trade,huge budget deficits and overvalued currency -- resulting in a false standard of living and living off the rest of the world; consumer over-spending and their accumulated debts which are now unsustainable; wars and security costs (due to retaliation -- re 911).

And now the attempt to restore the Old Order will only increase the problem. Hence unless the US government changes radically there is no recovery ever -- as how can one compete with slave wages abroad unless one goes down to their wage-cost levels? Even hi-tech and new technology is being farmed out to them.
JJR

Comment by wayne connors on 2009-04-20
You must be Rush's brother! You sound a lot like hiim. I do not feel your arguments hold water-your bucket has a hole in it. I didnot see any rational deductive thinking, just reteric of the Right. Sorry this is not a winner. Thanks, Wayne
Comment by Joel Grym on 2009-04-21
I'm not surprised that one who makes their living through 'wall street' activity would hold this position. Freedman the architect of this worn out model is cut taxes for the wealthy so they can reinvest these savings and let the trickle down largess from their windfalls happen. THE enlighten and benevolent ruling elites will shower us with their blessings. Well we have gotten wet from the yellow showers and are ready for much more change then Mr. Obama is on about.
Comment by D ROBERTSON on 2009-04-21
"If we are going to rebuild our economy on a solid foundation, the market, not the government, needs to draw the plans."

Oh yes?
In view of recent experience as to where the markets can take us, that's about the fastest case of amnesia I have ever known!!!

What we want from Obama & other leaders is a thorough reform of the markets & limits on their folly, not to let them talk themselves back to their self-appointed status of "we know best".

Had it not been for almost limitless govt intervention, the markets had killed the economy.

REMEMBER THAT!
Comment by Edward D. Phillips, Ph.D. on 2009-04-21
Schiff's analysis is shallow and off the mark. He fancies himself an economist, yet he does not have an economics degree, has not worked as an economist, has not done any economic research, and has not taught the subject. He has read some superficial Von Mises literature that is also outdated and irrelevant today. His understanding of economics is so weak that he apparently does not understand that we are now in a recession, and the policies needed to get us out are completely different fromt those that can sustain us once the economy recovers. Spending is an essential part of thar recovery. It does not stem from "Keynesian" theory, rather from the quantity theory, namely, M*V = P*T. But even common sense tells anyone that lower interest rates and more money in circulation will generate more economic activity, more jobs, and more growth.
Comment by Thomas Jefferson on 2009-04-21
It's obvious that none of the other negative commentators so far (with the exception of Edward Phillips) knows anything about either history or economics. Excesses and correction are part of free market capitalism. This particular situation was exacerbated by incompetent and corrupt regulators, including the SEC allowing overleverage and congressional Democrats promoting corruption at Fannie and Freddie in exchange for campaign money, and forcing lenders to give money to people who couldn't pay.
If you think big government works, take a look at the Soviet Union and Cuba.
I fully agree that many Wall Street (and auto) executives should be thrown out and sued for mismanagement. But there is plenty of blame to go around, including people who purchased those ridiculous mortages, and unions who demanded ridiculous wages and benefits.
Regardless of Mr. Schiff's background, what he says is correct. You don't cure overleverage by more overleverage. This will be obvious even to all of you in a few years.
I'm glad I still have the freedom to dissent. I fear in a few years that Big Brother (read 1984 by George Orwell) will no longer tolerate that.