Video: Milton Friedman on the Minimum Wage Law

In the following video, the late illustrious economist and Nobel prize winner Milton Friedman eloquently explained of the nasty side effects of the minimum wage law: (hat tip AEI's scholar and Professor Mark Perry ) [bold mine]

The fact is, the programs labeled as being “for the poor,” or “for the needy,” almost always have effects exactly the opposite of those which their well-intentioned sponsors intend them to have.

Let me give you a very simple example – take the minimum wage law. Its well-meaning sponsors there are always in these cases two groups of sponsors – there are the well-meaning sponsors and there are the special interests, who are using the well-meaning sponsors as front men. You almost always when you have bad programs have an unholy coalition of the do-gooders on the one hand, and the special interest on the other. The minimum wage law is as clear a case as you could want. The special interests are of course the trade unions – the monopolistic trade craft unions. The do-gooders believe that by passing a law saying that nobody shall get less than $9 per hour (adjusted for today) or whatever the minimum wage is, you are helping poor people who need the money. You are doing nothing of the kind. What you are doing is to assure, that people whose skills, are not sufficient to justify that kind of a wage will be unemployed.

The minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying that employers must discriminate against people who have low skills. That’s what the law says. The law says that here’s a man who has a skill that would justify a wage of $5 or $6 per hour (adjusted for today), but you may not employ him, it’s illegal, because if you employ him you must pay him $9 per hour. So what’s the result? To employ him at $9 per hour is to engage in charity. There’s nothing wrong with charity. But most employers are not in the position to engage in that kind of charity. Thus, the consequences of minimum wage laws have been almost wholly bad. We have increased unemployment and increased poverty.

Moreover, the effects have been concentrated on the groups that the do-gooders would most like to help. The people who have been hurt most by the minimum wage laws are the blacks. I have often said that the most anti-black law on the books of this land is the minimum wage law.

There is absolutely no positive objective achieved by the minimum wage law. Its real purpose is to reduce competition for the trade unions and make it easier for them to maintain the higher wages of their privileged members.

Example of How the Minimum Wage Hurt Businesses

Below is an example how government interventionism harms businesses and thus the economy. In the case below, the adverse impact of minimum wages (hat tip Division of Labor’s E. Frank Stephenson)

From KRQE.com

In November, Albuquerque voters said yes to raising the city's minimum wage from $7.50 to $8.50 an hour, and just 13 days into the increase, historic city restaurant is already feeling the pinch.

Owners of the historic El Charritos restaurant on Central say the hike is taking a bit out of business…

Romero says the hike came at the worst possible time for the business with an already sluggish economy, as people cut back on eating out and venders upped their prices for food and fuel.

To stay afloat El Charritos is cutting back too. They have slashed hours now closing at 2 p.m. on Mondays and Tuesdays to cut back on operating costs. El Charritos has also chosen not to fill six positions and say things could get worse.

At the end of the day, vested interest groups that root for minimum wages (e.g. labor unions and companies which use such policies to undermine competition) distorts the balance of the economy and results to increases in unemployment

As the great dean of the Austrian school of economics, Murray N. Rothbard warned (italics mine)

In truth, there is only one way to regard a minimum-wage law: it is compulsory unemployment, period. The law says, it is illegal, and therefore criminal, for anyone to hire anyone else below the level of X dollars an hour. This means, plainly and simply, that a large number of free and voluntary wage contracts are now outlawed and hence that there will be a large amount of unemployment.

 

US States: High Debts and Labor Unionism

Some debt crisis stricken US states could be facing debt downgrades soon.

From Businessweek/Bloomberg,

The debt of 30 California cities, including Oakland, Fresno and Sacramento, has been placed under review for downgrades because of economic pressures in the state, Moody’s Investors Service said.

The examinations may affect $14.3 billion in lease-backed and general-obligation debt issued by the municipalities, the New York-based company said yesterday in a statement.

“California cities operate under more rigid revenue- raising constraints than cities in many other parts of the country,” Eric Hoffmann, who heads Moody’s California local government ratings team, said in a statement. “Combined with steeply rising costs, these constraints mean that these cities will likely recover more slowly than their peers nationally, even if the state’s economic recovery tracks the nation’s.”

Communities in California have struggled to stay afloat by cutting staff and services to make up for a drop in sales and property tax revenue in the wake of the recession. Stockton, San Bernardino and Mammoth Lakes have gone into bankruptcy court since June.

Moody’s said it identified the credits as part of a broader review started in August of 95 rated cities in California.

The general-obligation bond ratings of Los Angeles, now Aa3, fourth-highest,and San Francisco, Aa2, third-highest, are on review for upgrades, Moody’s said.

Such developments merely reminds us that the US remains highly fragile to lingering debt problems.

Also, the prospective downgrades reminds me of an article that I recently came across which associates high levels of debt with high levels of ‘forced’ unionization.

From DScoundrels.com (hat tip Charleston Voice)

After discovering that the Top 10 states with the highest tax rates were all Forced Union states, it comes as no surprise that the top states with the worst debt trouble are also Forced Union states. Back in January Forbes tallied up several factors to identify which states were in the worst debt trouble (50 being the worst). The ‘Debt Per Capita and Unfunded Pensions Per Capita’ number is how much is owed per person in the state. Forbes looked at the following:

The metrics we looked at for each state included unfunded pension liabilities, changes in tax revenue, credit agency ratings, debt as a percentage of Gross State Product, debt per capita, growth expectations for employment and the state economy, net migrations and a moocher ratio that compares government employees, pension burdens and Medicaid enrollees to private-sector employment.

Forced Union vs Right-to-Work States:

Of the top 15 states with the worst debt troubles every one listed is a Forced Union state other than Mississippi and Louisiana. These states are outliers because they have assumed larger debt due to rebuilding after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. Of the top 15 states with the least debt troubles, all but 4 (New Hampshire, Montana, Colorado and Indiana) are Right-to-Work states. Note that in 2005 Governor Daniels of Indiana revokedthe collective bargaining rights of public sector unions.  It is also notable that the Forced Union states have a higher percentage of unionized government workers than the Right-to-Work states.

Read the rest here.

Due to the mass production and centralized organization structure which characterized the industrial age, labor unions used to represent highly influential vested groups. 

Chart from the conservative Heritage Foundation 

They still are politically influential but a lot less than what had been.

Proof of this is that some of President Obama’s policies have been conspicuously pro-union e.g. auto bailouts.

However due to globalization and the deepening of the information age, labor union trends have been on a decline worldwide.

Governments in the past has implemented inflationism to pacify US labor union groups.

As the great Ludwig von Mises narrated,

The very essence of the interventionist politicians' wisdom is to raise the price of labor either by government decree or by violent action on the part of labor unions. To raise wage rates above the height at which the unhampered market would determine them is considered a postulate of the eternal laws of morality as well as indispensable from the economic point of view. Whoever dares to challenge this ethical and economic dogma is scorned both as depraved and ignorant. Many of our contemporaries look upon people who are foolhardy enough "to cross a picket line" as primitive tribesmen looked upon those who violated the precepts of taboo conceptions. Millions are jubilant if such scabs receive their well-deserved punishment from the hands of the strikers while the police, the public attorneys, and the penal courts preserve a lofty neutrality…

Firmly committed to the principles of interventionism, governments try to check this undesired result of their interference by resorting to those measures which are nowadays called full-employment policy: unemployment doles, arbitration of labor disputes, public works by means of lavish public spending, inflation, and credit expansion. All these remedies are worse than the evil they are designed to remove.

I believe that a lot of the advocates for the mercantilist-inflationists dogma are those bearing a nostalgia for big labor union days.

Unfortunately for them, today’s political priorities have shifted. Governments, along with their central banks, have been supporting mostly the crony banking system (through asset prices) whom has served as key financier to welfare-warfare based political institutions.

Worse, the era of labor union, welfare-warfare and big government are being seriously challenged by growing forces of decentralization and by internal atrophy from unsustainable government spending-debt dynamics.

Quote of the Day: Keynesian Policies as Root of Inflationism

What is happening instead is that workers are getting higher money wages, which are lower real wages because the value of the monetary unit is constantly being diluted. We are going into progressive inflation. Savers are being liquidated. Their property is being confiscated. New savers are scared away. Politicians are constantly afraid, and rightly so, of doing things that are unpopular. They endorse popular spending measures but they shun the resulting costs, and to stay popular they have resorted to inflation. This is the so-called Keynesian policy. It is set forth in Keynes' book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. The key sentence is: "A movement by employers to revise money-wage bargains downward will be more strongly resisted than a gradual and automatic lowering of real wages as a result of rising prices."

This was the policy endorsed by Keynes. It is the policy of most governments in the Western world today. Keynes knew, as every economist does, that the only way that you can employ more people is to lower the wage rate. But ever since World War I this had become politically more difficult in Great Britain. Powerful British labor unions, with the help of the Fabian Socialists, had built up public pressures which opposed any lowering of any money wages. British politicians of all parties were afraid to resist this popular union policy. So in 1931, when the number of unemployed became unbearable, the politicians in office preferred to lower wages by devaluing the British pound. The workers kept their puffed-up pound wages, but their pounds bought less.

In 1936, Keynes gave this political policy academic sanction in the book and sentence just quoted. Since then, most Western nations have adopted this "full employment" policy. In essence, when unemployment is considered too high, wages are lowered by lowering the value of the monetary unit. This is done by increasing the quantity of the monetary units. This will be the subject of the next lectures. We will then discuss money and the government handling of this monetary problem. We have gotten into a situation of ever-rising wages and prices, with more and more workers paid less than they would earn in a free market. It is very difficult to get out of such a situation. The real answer, of course, is economic education.

Neither union leaders nor union workers are stupid people. Keynes and the British politicians were able to fool the employees in England when they first tried this scheme in 1931. They changed all the index numbers, making it difficult to document the price rises reflecting the lower purchasing power of the pound. But now every union has a statistician. They may call him an economist, but he can see from the official cost of living indices that prices are going up. And when they go up, the unions demand still higher wages. This system of Keynes' has just about reached the end of the road. You can no longer fool the workers by lowering the value of the monetary unit. They are on to what is happening and they are not going to take it much longer. The only final answer to this problem is more economic education, showing that the only way to keep raising wages permanently is to increase production, and the way to do this is to encourage savings. For it is only increased savings that can provide workers with more and better education and more and better tools, with which they can produce and buy more and better products that they want most.

(bold emphasis added)

This is from the must read transcribed lecture by economist Percy L. Greaves, Jr. (1906–1984) at the Mises.org.

The Tipping Point Of The Industrial Age Political Order

Politics has been shifting along with the evolution in the economy. The problem is that most people’s mindset has still been stuck with archaic models and or of visions of the previous order.

Old One Horse Shay (Wikimedia)

Walter Russell Mead captures neatly this intuitive ‘resistance to change’.

Mr. Mead writes, (bold highlights mine)

Krugman and the Times editorial board are both examples of something important in American life today: left-liberal intellectuals are increasingly able to understand that individual supports of the blue social model are crumbling. But they are still so captivated by the blue model, so profoundly convinced that the Progressive movement’s solutions to America’s social ills in 1910 are still valid today, that they cannot yet look beyond the blue model to imagine a different and brighter future for the United States....

If, as Krugman posits, demand for US workers will be falling in both manufacturing and the professions, how exactly will labor unions get higher wages for their members? Factories will be closing in Krugman’s world and law firms will be turning more and more work over to computers or shipping it overseas. Perhaps stronger unions could make it harder for companies to do this for a while, but ultimately facts speak. Stronger unions making tougher wage demands will not exactly persuade American (and foreign) investors to create new jobs in this country — or to slow down their efforts to reduce their US workforce by outsourcing and automation. When human workers receive rising wages, become harder to fire, and are governed by ever more convoluted and expensive work rules, replacing them with computers becomes more attractive, not less.

Unions tend to flourish when demand for workers is rising (as in China today); they do not and cannot protect the situation of workers as a whole against a background of falling long-term demand for their work.

The problem isn’t that this or that piece of the blue social model is breaking down and needs to be fixed so that the rest of the model can go on working well. It’s not that the university system is broken and that if we fix that the model still works. Ditto the public sector unions or the situation of the labor movement as a whole. Mandating an expensive new set of health care entitlements at a time of looming insolvency won’t help either.

The problem with the blue social model today is systemic. It’s not a problem with one piece or another. The pieces are all falling down and breaking apart at once. It is what happened to the “One Hoss Shay” in Oliver Wendell Holmes’ poem about, they used to teach us back in Pundit High, the breakdown of Calvinist religion in New England.

Read the rest here.

Like the transition of the economic order from agriculture to industry, we are seeing also the same transition from industrial era to the information age. And since the economy drives politics, so will the political structures shift accordingly.

The important point is that these ‘political-economic’ transitions represent a discovery process. It will NOT happen overnight. It will come with painful episodes of trial and errors with many fine tuning along the way.

It will also come with the auto response mechanism known as “resistance to change” especially from entrenched parties that had long benefited from the old order. Walter Mead’s take down of left-liberal intellectuals go along this line of thought.

Labor unions can be compared to current government budget deficits modelled after Bismark’s welfare states. All have been based on the industrial age top-down concept.

And the same top-bottom dynamic goes along with information flows as seen through the previous mainstream media model. But the web has been providing intense competition such that the old force appears to be breaking down. And unlike governments and their apologists, who seem plagued by intellectual stasis, many in the media appear as trying to cope with the changes of the current trends.

While the welfare construct could be seen to have worked earlier, these economically unsustainable platforms have been giving way. In short, the politics of the industrial age may have reached its tipping point.

And as the revolutions in Greece or the MENA, or the standoff in Wisconsin manifests, they operate on a common denominator—the political economic structure of the industrial age has been crumbling.

Many will struggle to maintain the old order, and that’s why transitions are never smooth. But at the end of the day, we are likely to learn how to adjust to these new realities in spite of the conflicts. Alternatively, this extrapolates to "don't fight the trend".

And I close with Mr. Mead’s conclusion...

This is the essence of progress: as we move forward less of our society’s time and energy goes into just staying alive; more of it goes into living better. The key to that now is to move as quickly as possible to reshape these critical professions with the full power of information technology

Amen.

Why Global Labor Unions Have Been On A Decline

Labor unions have been on a declining trend, not just locally but internationally.

Trade or Labor Unions, according to the Wikipedia, is “organisation of workers that have banded together to achieve common goals such as better working conditions. The trade union, through its leadership, bargains with the employer on behalf of union members (rank and file members) and negotiates labour contracts (collective bargaining) with employers. This may include the negotiation of wages, work rules, complaint procedures, rules governing hiring, firing and promotion of workers, benefits, workplace safety and policies. The agreements negotiated by the union leaders are binding on the rank and file members and the employer and in some cases on other non-member workers.”

Labor unions, for me, function as political force, which uses government laws for extracting economic privileges, at the expense of the company owners, non-labor union workers and taxpayers indirectly (such as the GM bailout) or directly (government unions).

The main goal of the labor union is to restrict manpower supply and to raise wages and benefits above market levels. And in doing so, labor unions add to the imbalances in the labor markets, which results to higher unemployment levels and the lack of competitiveness among many others.

For public unions the desire is for more taxpayer funded privileges.

In other words, labor unions thrive on a non-competitive environment.

As shown in the above (interactive) chart by the New York Times, since the 1980s labor or trade union around the world has seen a sharp decline except for a few, e.g. Iceland.

The main reason: rising international competitiveness or globalization.

Cato’s Dan Griswold explains (bold highlights mine)

Economic theory offers a number of reasons why growing international competition would be damaging to the interests of labor unions. More competition in product markets means greater elasticity of demand for labor—that is, global competition means that demand for labor is more sensitive to any change in wages.

Employers competing in global markets cannot simply pass higher wage costs along to consumers in the form of higher prices because consumers themselves can choose to buy substitute products from lower-cost, often nonunionized producers.

Expanding capital mobility means that employers are more able to shift production to lower-wage countries if necessary. A more mobile company is better able to threaten or employ an “exit” option in response to union demands. In the face of product competition and capital mobility, union demands for higher wages can lead instead to fewer domestic union jobs, as has been the case in a number of firms and industries.

In contrast, in markets insulated from robust competition, unions can more readily demand a share of a company’s or industry’s profits without fear of compromising the survival or competitiveness of the employer. Insulated markets create rents in the form of abovemarket profits that unions can then bargain with management to divide between them at the expense of the consuming public.

In short, the more a country is open to trade, the bigger likelihood of the diminished role of labor unions.

There are other non trade factors are involved too.

They include, adds Mr. Griswold, more rapid growth of certain categories of workers, such as women, southerners, and white-collar workers, who are less favourable to unionization; the deregulation of transportation industries; declining efforts of unions to organize new members; government activity that substitutes for union services, such as unemployment insurance, industrial accident insurance, leave policies, and other workplace regulations; the decline in pro-union attitudes among workers; and increased resistance among employers

For me, another very critical factor second to globalization has been the ongoing transition from industrial era to the information age.

Labor unions had basically been tailored for vertical organizational structures. But times are changing. As technology (via the web) becomes more entrenched, the nature of work has gradually been reconfiguring. And this provides lesser opportunity for unionization to take place, aside from the financial incentive or viability to maintain one.

As Alvin Toffler writes in Revolutionary Wealth,

Work is increasingly mobile, taking place on airplanes, in cars, at hotels and restaurants. Instead of staying in one organization, with the same co-workers for years, individuals are moving from project team to task force and work group continually losing and gaining teammates. Many are ‘free agents’ on contract, rather than employees as such. Yet while corporations are changing at a hundred miles per hour, American unions remain frozen in amber, saddle with the legacy organizations, methods and models left over from the 1930s and the mass production era.

In other words, digitalization, automation, robotics and other technology enhancements which raises productivity are taking many people out of the industrial era work. The more outsourcing and specialization takes place the lesser role played by the labor unions.

Investing guru Doug Casey also sees the same,

The good news, however, is that coercive unions are on the way out. They're anachronisms. They're leftovers from the time when people were like interchangeable parts in the giant factories they worked in. People were so replaceable that one person was little better or worse than another – because they were basically biological robots. In the early industrial era, labor was in over-supply, society was poor, and conditions were harsh everywhere. It's understandable why workers felt they had to band together for self-protection. But the industrial era is gone. The assembly line with thousands of workers is totally outmoded. In the global information age, trying to extort high wages for manual labor is pointless. Soon robots will be doing almost everything, then nanomachines will replace the robots. People will only be doing work that requires thought, judgment, and individuality. Those aren't things that can be unionized.

It pays to look at the big picture.

Labor union trends worldwide have not been declining because of culture or politics, but because of economics.

Poker Bluff: The Exit Strategy Theme For 2010

Many have used the strong showing of 2009 to advert that 2010 would be the year of “exits”. I don't buy it.

As in the game of poker, I’d call this equivalent to a policymaker’s Poker bluff.

Clear Divergence: Periphery Versus Core

This ‘exit strategy’ may be probably ring true for many emerging markets whose economies have been more responsive to the hodgepodge of policies designed to cushion the economies from downside volatility.

Again, the wide variance of performances of emerging markets relative to advanced economies validates our theory since the peak of the crisis where each nations would respond differently to the near uniform set of policies adopted, leading to divergent market and economic results.

And such patent discrepancies have led to earlier tightening policies of some nations. According to the Businessweek, ``Since Nov. 30, the central banks of Australia, Vietnam, Norway and Israel have raised interest rates, and signs the global recession is ending have spurred speculation the U.S. Federal Reserve will follow this year.”

On Thursday, China joined the roster of countries engaged in a rollback of easy money policies, the Businessweek quotes the Bloomberg, ``China's move to raise the cost of three-month bills will probably lead to the nation's first interest-rate increase in almost three years by September, a survey of economists showed.”

Figure 2: Economist: Decoupling in Government Debt and Growth

The Economist says that a major source of this growth discrepancy will likely emanate from the PONZI scheme employed by major economies to substitute lost ‘aggregate’ demand with leverage incurred by government to spur this ‘demand’.

From the Economist, ``Advanced economies, which aggressively stimulated demand and are forecast to experience weak GDP growth next year, contrast starkly with the G20’s developing countries. After some gentle fiscal stimulus, these countries are on track for strong growth next year. The IMF forecasts that gross government debt among advanced economies will continue to rise until 2014, reaching 114% of GDP, compared to just 35% for developing nations. With governments struggling to rein in their finances, rating agencies are becoming increasingly twitchy; rich countries such as America and Britain are fearful of losing their hallowed triple-A status.” (all bold highlights mine)

Of course there are many other reasons to suggest why emerging markets seem to be on a secular trend to play catch up with advanced economies, particularly positive demographic trend, urbanization, high savings rate, low debt or systemic leverage, unimpaired banking system, rising middle class and most importantly a trend towards embracing economic freedom via more freer trade, investments, financial and migration flows [e.g. see Asian Regional Integration Deepens With The Advent Of China ASEAN Free Trade Zone]

However the more important factor revealed by the Economist in the terse article above is that the debt onus for advanced economies implies low productivity, cost of crowding out private investments, larger tax burden, greater risks of escalating consumer prices, higher than average unemployment rate, greater cost of financing debt, heightened sovereign risk premia and fiscal austerity measures that may entail a higher degree of political volatility.

Harvard’s Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff seconds this view in a recent study,

``Our main finding is that across both advanced countries and 23 emerging markets, high debt/GDP levels (90 percent and above) are associated with notably lower growth outcomes. In addition, for emerging markets, there appears to be a more stringent threshold for total external debt/GDP (60 percent), that is also associated with adverse outcomes for growth. Seldom do countries simply “grow” their way out of deep debt burdens.”

Alternatively, this also raises the risks of an implosion in the fast emerging government debt bubble, which we will call as the Keynesian Debt Crisis-(since most of these debts were acquired in the context of the Keynesian ideology), one of the risks that could spoil our fun in 2010.

Nearly 90% of the world’s bond markets have been denominated in these four major currencies (Ivy Global Bond): the US dollar, the Japanese yen, British pound, dollar, and the euro.

This means that even if many emerging markets will tighten, it is the policies from the advanced economies that will likely have a greater impact on global capital flows.

And it is why we hypothesize that even if global policymakers pay lip service to the so-called “exit strategies”, what truly matters will be the policy actions by authorities in the face of the evolving activities in the marketplace, the real and the political economy.

Hence, it would be an immense mistake to parse on a single variable, e.g. unemployment, when there would be sundry factors in determining political action.

In other words, this means deducing political and economic persuasions or ideology of the incumbent officials, interpreting their underlying cognitive biases based on their speeches, interviews or official pronouncements, analyzing their interpretation of events and lastly appraising on the political influences of certain interest groups that may determine the prospective actions of policymakers.

The Underlying Incentives Of The Poker Bluff

So what factors could likely determine the direction of policy actions?

Interest Rate Derivatives. One must realize of the extent of sensitivity of global asset values are to interest rates.

Figure 3: BIS: Composition Of Global Derivatives

Interest rate derivatives account about 72% or $437 trillion of the notional $605 trillion as of June of 2009 according to the Bank of International Settlements.

Any unexpected volatility from so-called monetary rollback could amplify the risks of unnerving the markets. Thereby, policymakers would likely remain supportive of unorthodox actions like Quantitative Easing.

Hence, we see the recent measures by the Bank of Japan to impose their version of Quantitative Easing last December has catapulted the Nikkei to outperform [see The US Federal Reserve Experiments On Unwinding Stimulus As Bank Of Japan Engages in QE]. In addition, the Bank Of England remains with on track with its ₤ 190 billion of asset purchases and which is likely to increase to ₤ 200 billion (Edmund Conway, Telegraph) and possibly more.

Expanding GSE Operations. In the US, a day before Christmas eve, as everyone had been partying, the US government via the US Treasury stealthily lifted its financing cap on the Government Sponsored Enterprise of Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) [Wall Street Journal].

Essentially, this places the GSE debt on the US balance sheets, which technically has been operating on “implied” guarantees. Some analysts see that the ambiguity of the US position has led to foreigners to become risk-averse and avoid purchases of these securities.

Hence, the US treasury hopes that by making “implicit” guarantees as “explicit”, it would reduce the pressure on US Fed to bolster the US housing market via Quantitative Easing, and make GSE assets more attractive.

Remember about 9 out of 10 mortgages transacted today have been consummated by these GSE entities, thereby by opening the checkbook to absorb more tainted assets and in the absence of the resumption of foreign interests, the alternative view is that the Fed could increase its scope of quantitative easing programs.

Of course by incorporating the aforementioned GSE debt on the US balance sheets, recorded US liabilities will rise and exert pressures on its sovereign credit ratings.

The point is, US housing market, even faced with some semblance of recovery, remains heavily sensitive to interest rates movement which will likely compel authorities to tweak with financial markets and remain policy easy.

Policymaker’s Economic Ideology. Ben Bernanke is known as an expert of the Great Depression from which his views on monetary policy has been oriented towards the Milton Friedman model, i.e. to provide generous liquidity during an economic recession. The illustrious Mr. Milton Friedman in an interview with Radio Australia said, ``So in our opinion, the Great Depression was not a sign of the failure of monetary policy or a result of the failure of the market system as was widely interpreted. It was instead a consequence of a very serious government failure, in particular a failure in the monetary authorities to do what they'd initially been set up to do.”

And it is likely that from this monetary paradigm he sees the risks of an economic relapse from premature tightening as that in 1937-38. Hence Mr. Bernanke is likely to pursue what he sees as a triumphant path dependency policy of money printing.

Analyst Mike Larson says it best, ``Look at Chairman Bernanke’s background. Massive money printing is at the heart of his entire philosophy. He literally wrote the book on this subject — the book that’s now essentially the Fed’s operating manual on precisely how to print enough money to overwhelm almost any economic collapse.

``Bernanke believes in his heart of hearts that the Fed prematurely hiked rates in 1937, prolonging the Great Depression into 1938 and beyond. He’s convinced that that single, momentous blunder of history is what doomed the world to a nasty “double dip.” (emphasis added)

It’s also the reason why Fed Chair Ben Bernanke recently put the blame squarely on the shoulders of belated regulatory response as having caused the crisis and exculpated the low interest regime (Bloomberg).

By keeping the political heat off low interest rates, he hopes and intends to divert the public’s attention away from his primary tool to manipulate markets.

Ironically and bizarrely too, Mr. Bernanke used the Taylor Rule model to justify the exoneration of role of low interest to the recent crisis.

However John Taylor, a Professor at Stanford University and a former Treasury undersecretary, the creator of the popular model challenged and issued a rejoinder on Bernanke’s interpretation saying ``The evidence is overwhelming that those low interest rates were not only unusually low but they logically were a factor in the housing boom and therefore ultimately the bust.” (Bloomberg).

This goes to show that the fudging, twisting and the manipulation of the means (model or data) in order to come up with the desired end signify as a symptom of economic dogmatism, which operates regardless of the veracity of the implied causality.

Record Debt Issuance, Rollover and Interest Payments. We have pointed out that the US economy, while indeed has been manifesting signs of recovery, hasn’t been entirely out of woods.

The next wave of mortgage resets, which we identified as Alt-A, Prime mortgages, and commercial real estate, which follows the original strain-the subprime mortgages, are still putting pressure on the US real estate industry [as discussed in Governments Will Opt For The Inflation Route].

Moreover, many US States have been staggering from bloated deficits stemming from falling tax revenues in the face of bubble day spending budgets, probably this year will mark a series of bailouts from the Federal government [see Federal Bailout For US States In 2010?]

So together with huge fiscal spending slated for 2010 plus the rollover of maturing debts and the attendant interest payments, as previously discussed in Market Myths and Fallacies On The Dubai Debt Crisis, all these would translate to some $3.6 Trillion of financing required for the US for this year.

We said then,

``$1.9 trillion of debt required for refinancing + $1.5 trillion in additional deficits + $ .2 trillion in interest payments=$3.6 trillion of financing required for 2010! Since US and global savers (particularly Asia) are unlikely to finance this humungous amount, [other parts of the world will require debt financing too (!!)], the available alternative options appear to be narrowing-the Federal Reserve would have to act as the financer of last resort through the Bernanke’s printing press or declare a default. Of course, Bernanke could always pray for a “Dues ex machina” miracle.”

This means that to activate an “exit” mode by raising interest rates risks heightening the amount required for financing. That’s obviously is a NO CAN DO for the authorities.

Moreover, the US won’t likely take the risks of a “failed auction” during its record Treasury sales this year, since this would likely send the interest and bond markets into a tailspin or a mayhem.

This means that as contingent plans we expect that the US Federal Reserve will remain as THE buyer of the last resort for the US treasury markets.

Devaluation as an unofficial policy. We have stated in numerous occasions [e.g. see Changing The Rules Of The Game By Inflation] how Ben Bernanke champions the mainstream view of oversimplifying economic problems by reducing (yes reduction ad absurdum) them into few variables. Hence by focusing on a few variables such as global imbalances, he sets forth devaluation as the key instrument for economic salvation- via his Helicopter “nuclear” option.

Again Mr. Bernanke in his Helicopter speech, ``it's worth noting that there have been times when exchange rate policy has been an effective weapon against deflation.”

Yes it’s a supreme irony for government to promote debt, yet fear its consequence-deflation.

It’s also worth repeating that the only way to achieve devaluation is through inflationism which is what Bernanke’s Zero Interest Rate policy, quantitative easing and host of other interventionism-in the form alphabet soup of programs to the tune of Trillions of spending and guarantees, have all been about.

As Ludwig von Mises wrote in Stabilization of the Monetary Unit? From the Viewpoint of Theory ``The valuation of a monetary unit depends not on the wealth of a country, but rather on the relationship between the quantity of, and demand for, money.”

The same ideology afflicts other policymakers as seen in Japan, England and most of the central bankers of the world.

Remember, inflationism is a form of protectionism, since it supports or protects the interests of some politically favorite sectors at the expense of the rest of the society.

In the case of the US, such collective ‘devaluation’ policies appear aimed at alleviating the untenable debt levels held by the banking industry.

Although the public seem to have been grossly misled by political demagoguery and politically colored experts who try to make believe the tomfoolery that devaluation is about exports (only 11% of the economy see Dueling Keynesians Translates To Protectionism?) or about jobs.

Of course, another mechanism of devaluation is the transferring of the resources from the real economy to the banking and finance industry.

Unfortunately for the gullible adherents, who seem to have lost any semblance of critical thinking and common sense enough to swallow hook line and sinker the hogwash that such political propaganda as the “truth”, “candidness” of the messenger and meant as “best” for the social order.

Hardly in the understanding that such political actions represent as ruse for a political end. Again from Professor von Mises, ``By deceiving public opinion, it permits a system of government to continue which would have no hope of receiving the approval of the people if conditions were frankly explained to them.”

Hence, the so-called “exit” program would be antipodal to the policy thrust to devalue the currency.

Political Influences On Policy Making. One unstated reason why companies like General Motors or Chrysler have been nationalized or significantly buttressed by the government is due to the payback of favors to a political constituent, particularly in this case the labor union.

Considering that labor had been a big contributor to Obama’s election, where according to Heritage Foundation, ``Big Labor spent an estimated $450 million on the 2008 election, and the SEIU alone put $85 million into the political campaign — almost $30 million just for Obama’s election”, many of Obama’s major policies appears to have been designed as remuneration for political ties.

This can be seen with the recent tariffs slapped against China, the infrastructure stimulus spending which forces contractors to hire labor union members, the latest $154 billion round of stimulus passed in Congress last December targeted at reducing unemployment, proposed taxes on stock trades to fund labor projects, mass unionization of the US government which now constitutes more than half or 51.2% compared to 17.3% in 1973 and many more.

Of course the other vested interest group as stated above would be the banking sector.

The point is- a higher cost of financing from a series of interest rate increases and monetary policy rollback will vastly reduce the Obama administration’s capacity to fund the pet projects of his most favored allies.

And going into the election year for the US Senate in 2010, greatly reduces this incentive especially that the popularity of Democrats has been on a free fall, as shown by recent Gallup polls, WSJ-NBC News, and Ramussen Reports

Finally, the Question Of Having To Conduct Successful Policy Withdrawals. This would be technical in nature as it would involve the methodology of how excess reserves, the alphabet soup of market patches, guarantees and commitments will be successfully scaled down.

For us, thinking that garbage would be bought back at the original “subsidized” price is no more than wishful thinking. Most of the so-called “plans: would be like having off balance sheet holdings.

Figure 4: BIS: Central Bank Balance Sheet and Spreads for the Crisis

Analyst Jim Bianco was spot on when quoted by Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge, ``We believe the proposal of this new tool signals the Federal Reserve is still flailing around trying to look busy so everyone is assured they have a plan.” (Bold highlight mine)

Bottom line: Interest Rate Derivatives, Expanding GSE Operations, Economic Ideology Record Debt Issuance, Rollover and Interest Payments, Devaluation as an unofficial policy, Political Influences On Policy Making and the Question Of Having To Conduct Successful Policy Withdrawals all poses as huge factors or incentives that would drive any material changes in the Federal Reserve and or the US government policies.

In knowing the above, I wouldn’t dare call on their bluffs.