Common sense is the crux of Austrian theory economics. Austrians look at how individuals act, not how “economies” or “nations” act or behave. Ludwig von Mises, the greatest Austrian thinker, and in my opinion the greatest economist, entitled his great work, Human Action not National Action. The Austrian School was referred to by the Germans as the Psychological School because its analysis started with individual action and how those actions would either attain or fail to attain the goals sought by individuals. In other words, it involves a lot of the “common sense” that guides human behavior most of the time. It’s comforting to know there’s a philosophy of economics that conforms to what human beings actually do rather than how some economist thinks we ought to behave.

Examples of economic Newspeak flourish, especially if you listen to President Obama’s economic team. My favorite example is the present conflict between consumer spending and consumer saving. Since the crash, consumers have cut back on spending and are increasing their savings. Most economists are saying this is bad for the economy; they urge us to spend, spend, spend to save the economy.

Actually, it’s just the opposite: Saving is the road to recovery.

It seems rather obvious that during a downturn of the economy it would be natural for people to save more and spend less: They’re uncertain about their jobs; the values of their homes have plummeted (about 30% since the peak in 2006); their stocks have declined, and their debts are high. Isn’t it common sense that people are doing the rational thing by saving? This is something our parents and grandparents understood well.

The explosion of the federal government’s size, scope, and power since the middle of 2008 has created enormous uncertainties in the minds of investors. New taxes and higher rates of old taxes; potentially large burdens of compliance with new energy regulations and mandatory health-care expenses; new, intrinsically arbitrary government oversight of so-called systemic risks associated with any type of business — all of these unsettling possibilities and others of substantial significance must give pause to anyone considering a long-term investment, because any one of them has the potential to turn what seems to be a profitable investment into a big loser. In short, investors now face regime uncertainty to an extent that few have experienced in this country — to find anything comparable, one must go back to the 1930s and 1940s, when the menacing clouds of the New Deal and World War II darkened the economic horizon.

Unless the government acts soon to resolve the looming uncertainties about the half-dozen greatest threats of policy harm to business, investors will remain for the most part on the sideline, protecting their wealth in cash hoards and low-risk, low-return, short-term investments and consuming wealth that might otherwise have been invested. If this situation continues for several years longer, the U.S. economy may well suffer its second “lost decade” for much the same reason that it suffered its first during the 1930s.

Unfortunately, the incentives for politicians are biased toward meddling, so don’t anticipate a slowing down of political “fixes” any time soon. If the US mid-term elections later this year return a “gridlocked” government, the economy might start to adapt to the current conditions and only then will any significant growth begin to take place. Given a relatively static political situation, businesses can at least make some plans based on their regulatory/legislative conditions as they are. Until some kind of stability is established, no businessperson in their right mind will take on major new plans: entrenching your existing business is far safer, while trying to do something radically different incurs too much risk. Risk, that is, over and above the “ordinary” risk of expansion, launching new products, or entering new markets.

Can microbreweries revive the economy? That’s the hope of Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) and a bipartisan group of senators who are pushing a plan to cut taxes on the nation’s legion of small brewers in hopes of stimulating hiring among craft brewers.

The plan, which was introduced by Sen. Kerry, would lower the per-barrel excise taxes on small breweries’ first two million barrels of beer per year (that’s 62 million gallons) and would triple the size of what the government classifies as a small brewer — to breweries that produce six million barrels a year from two million currently. Some co-sponsors include Sens. Olympia Snowe (R., Maine) and Ron Wyden (D., Ore.), whose states, not surprisingly, rank high on the list of states with the most breweries per capita.

So-called craft brewers are one of the few industries to thrive through the recession. The segment grew from 7.2% by volume last year and 5.9% in 2008. The segment has even become a haven for budding entrepreneurs that have been let go from corporate jobs. “There’s not that many success stories in American manufacturing today and craft beer is one of them,” says Jim Koch, founder of The Boston Beer Co. which makes the various Samuel Adams beers. Mr. Koch — whose company is in Mr. Kerry’s home state — has been leading the charge for a lowering of the excise tax on small brewers.

Admittedly I’m in favour of most tax reductions, but this one in particular seems to be a good idea.

I’ve always felt that the “service-based” economy idea was kind of a mirage. Yes, IT has turned into a huge industry in the United States; and yes, IT has transformed the world job market. I’m just not sure the transformation is an entirely positive one. If you’re smart and willing to sit in a cubicle all day staring at a computer screen, you can do quite well. If your skills are more mechanical or manual in nature, or you like to work outdoors or on a shop-floor . . . not so much. It’s not just a question of being smart enough or not. Are we going to say that people below some arbitrary level of IQ are not essential any more, or are not able to be productive or successful? It’s almost like a mirror-image of Harrison Bergeron. Efficiency isn’t everything, in markets or anything else. An economy must produce stuff, not just electrons in different patterns that fly back and forth. Less-bright people may have skills that the smarties lack. Many is the theoretical physicist or mathematician or computer whiz who must call a plumber when the toilet backs up.

Speaking as someone who started with a few manual labour jobs, I’m absolutely delighted that I didn’t have to stay in that segment of the economy: I was terrible at ‘em. He does make a good point that no matter how digitized our economy becomes, there will always be need for people who are more skilled at moving atomic-based matter as well as those who play with electrons.

It’s not exactly news that Obama is as anti-business as they come, even for a Democrat, but it’s nice to see that more people are realizing it. It’s useful to recognize the beast that’s killing you.

This is a good overview of why Obama (or any politician, really) can’t “create jobs” by hiring in the public sector. Public-sector workers do not add to GDP; they are net consumers of GDP because their paychecks are funded ultimately through taxes and fees. (They are also overpaid by about 12% compared to the private sector, mainly because their jobs are not subject to market pressures.) Public workers are paid via transfer-payments from the private sector. Government workers of any level are overhead. They are part of the cost-center, not the profit-center. You don’t hear private sector businessmen crying, “Let’s increase our overhead by 100%, boys! It’s the only way to save the firm!” There’s a reason why they don’t say that: it’s self-evidently stupid. There is also the fact that economies do not exist to give people jobs — economies exist to mediate the flow of goods between producers and consumers. Jobs are a side-effect, not the purpose, of an economy.

Several embedded links in the original post that are worth following.

Oh, and remember, if you live in Ontario or British Columbia, you’ll find lots of things are more expensive now that Harmonized Sales Tax is being added to what you buy. Even if (as the Fraser Institute says) the HST is more efficient than the Provincial Sales Tax, it will still mean higher prices at the point of sale for most of us. Thank your respective provincial governments for the sneaky way it was implemented.

A group of 346 noted economists had just written a scathing open letter to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, predicting that her tough fiscal policies would “deepen the depression, erode the industrial base, and threaten social stability.” Thatcher wanted to make absolutely certain her unpopular attack on huge deficits and rampant spending, in the face of high unemployment and a weak economy, was the right one.

So Thatcher summoned Meltzer, along with a group of trusted advisors, to explain why the experts were wrong. Even leaders of her own party advised Thatcher to make what they called a ‘U-Turn,’ and enact a big spending program to pull Britain out of recession. “Our job was to explain why lower deficits and spending discipline were the key to recovery,” recalls Meltzer.

Thatcher was regally unamused by arcane jargon. “Being right on the economics wasn’t enough,” intones Meltzer. “She made it clear that our job was to explain it so she could understand it. If we didn’t, she made it clear we were wasting her time. She’d say, ‘You’re not telling me what I need to know.’”

Thatcher stuck with draconian policies, invoking the battle chant “The Lady’s Not for Turning.” She launched Britain on years of balanced budgets, modest spending increases, falling joblessness, and extraordinary economic growth.

The classic Keynesian theory called for governments to run deficits during tough economic times in order to “prime the pump”: using government money to make up for the lack of private spending in the economy for a short period of time, until the private sector recovered. Governments worldwide grabbed on to this theory, but dispensed with the balancing notion that as soon as the economy recovered, the government had to pay off that debt to return to a balanced budget (or even go into surplus).

Politicians, as a class, love spending money. The more money, the better. They also have remarkably short timelines: the life of this parliament, the next election, pension eligibility date¹. Anything that happens beyond that short window of time isn’t important. Spending money the government doesn’t have now is a good thing, to a sitting politician. Paying off the debt later can be left to some mythical future politician.

The other problem that individuals and companies have, but governments don’t, is uncertainty due to regulatory change. Governments don’t have that worry because they’re the ones making the rules (and ignoring them when it’s politically convenient). If you want to depress investment in a given area of your economy, a swift way of doing so is to start faffing with the rules governing that sector. Until you stop changing rules, no company in that sector is going to spend any more than they absolutely have to spend, because you’re creating regulatory uncertainty beyond normal operating levels.

Multiply this by the number of separate government branches involved in making (overlapping, and sometimes conflicting) rules and you can get most major companies to stop expansion, reduce sales, slow or even cease hiring staff until the regulatory environment settles out and the “real” new operating conditions become clear.

[1] Interestingly enough, today happens to be the day that 75 members of parliament qualify for their lifetime gold-plated pensions. I didn’t realize that when I posted this item. Thanks for the heads-up, Kevin Gaudet.

BNP Paribas forecasts parity (and below!) for the poor, unloved Euro. The Euro is like the easy girl in every town: popular enough when she was young and cute, but now that she’s looking like nine miles of bad road, no one wants to be seen with her or has a kind word to say about her.

After insisting for months that they weren’t keeping the Yuan artificially devalued via the dollar-peg, the Chinese lift the peg, shout Squirrel!, and run away.

Meanwhile, a floating Yuan may not work out quite the way the US thinks it will. This happens to be my view — I think the export-driven Chinese economy is a lot weaker than they’re letting on (or may even realize themselves), and they have severe internal economic problems that the authoritarian government has been papering over for years. There will be a huge banking crisis in China at some point when the huge numbers of bad loans come to light — they can’t hide them forever. Further, the recent labor troubles in China may be only the leading edge of a big wave.

Of course, if you’ve been following Quotulatiousness for any time, you’ll know that I’m fully in agreement with Monty about the Chinese economy. In the long term, I’m quite hopeful about China and their ongoing liberalization and modernization, but in the short- to medium-term I think there are many problems that need to be resolved and that will cause a great deal of upheaval and disturbance.

Remember that even with the best good will in the world, China’s economy is still moving painfully from state-run to private enterprise, and the most common stop on that road is crony capitalism (that’s like capitalism without the rule of law but with private armies). The good news is that a greater proportion of the economy is adjusting to free(r) markets, but there’s still lots of zombie corporate entities set up and run by various branches of the government . . . and the army.

In the latest move, the exchange rate change may not be the panacea that too many American politicians are hoping for:

China’s decision to move away from its currency peg might mean the yuan weakens against the dollar instead of strengthens as Washington wants, Nouriel Roubini, one of Wall Street’s most closely followed economists, said Saturday.

China said Saturday it would gradually make the yuan more flexible after pegging it to the dollar for nearly two years, a move that the U.S. government and others around the world have long been calling for.

It won’t fix the underlying trade issues, even if the yuan moves in the “desired” direction, as the problem is much more rooted in American policy than in Chinese currency rates. As long as the American government insists on increasing the debt load, piling on additional regulatory regimes, and directly interfering in corporate decisions, the longer the economy will be unsettled. Stability is a key condition for economic recovery, yet the American government demonstrates a knee-jerk reaction against stability for every opportunity that arises.

Oh, and if you think the US banking system has bad loan issues, wait for the other shoe to drop:

China’s banking regulator warned Tuesday that the nation’s banking system faces risks from bad loans, particularly among those made to local governments and to the real-estate sector.

In its 2009 annual report, the China Banking Regulatory Commission urged banks to use cause and scientific risk analysis in their lending, and warned of dangers to the sector, both from lending in the past year and from development in the future.

The point where things start to go wrong seems to be about 50%. Above that people get serious about tax avoidance. The reason is that the payoff for avoiding tax grows hyperexponentially (x/1-x for 0 < x < 1). If your income tax rate is 10%, moving to Monaco would only give you 11% more income, which wouldn't even cover the extra cost. If it's 90%, you'd get ten times as much income. And at 98%, as it was briefly in Britain in the 70s, moving to Monaco would give you fifty times as much income. It seems quite likely that European governments of the 70s never drew this curve.

Paul Graham, “Why Startups Condense in America”, 2006-05

Empires, indeed governments generally, tend to be good things at first and bad things the longer they last. First they improve society’s ability to flourish by providing central services and removing impediments to trade and specialisation; thus, even Genghis Khan’s Pax Mongolica lubricated Asia’s overland trade by exterminating brigands along the Silk Road, thus lowering the cost of oriental goods in European parlours. But then, as Peter Turchin argues following the lead of the medieval geographer Ibn Khaldun, governments gradually employ more and more ambitious elites who capture a greater and greater share of the society’s income by interfering more and more in people’s lives as they give themselves more and more rules to enforce, until they kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. There is a lesson for today. Economists are quick to speak of “market failure”, and rightly so, but a greater threat comes from “government failure”. Because it is a monopoly, government brings inefficiency and stagnation to most things it runs; government agencies pursue the inflation of their budgets rather than the service of the customers; pressure groups form an unholy alliance with agencies to extract more money from taxpayers for their members. Yet despite all this, most clever people still call for government to run more things and assume that if it did so, it would somehow be more perfect, more selfless, next time.

Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves, p. 182