Category: Debt

Gas Taxes??

The US/Israel attack on Iran and resulting closing of the Straights of Hormuz has reduced the world’s oil supply. As a result, gasoline prices are increasing. Is that good or bad? Should the federal and state government suspend gasoline taxes until normal supply is restored?

When the supply of something is artificially reduced, its price increases to equate the new supply and demand. For gasoline, the impact of the supply shock can be moderated by releasing oil from the reserve the US and most countries maintain for such shocks. Thus the fall in gasoline supply would be kept smaller than it would other wise be. But how long will the supply shock last and how large is the reserve.?

The natural price increase in the face of a supply shock has several helpful effects. Those who need it most can still get it. Some non essential travel is reduced. President Nixon’s wage and price freeze in the early 1970s when confronted with the 1973 Arab oil embargo produced long lines of cars at gas stations that still had some gasoline. Price rationing is better than waiting in long lines

President Trump has proposed temporarily suspending government taxes on gasoline. This is a very bad idea not only because of the Nixon shock effect of non-price rationing but because it will reduce government revenue when its debt and deficits are already dangerously large. In the May 11 Washington Post Mitch Daniels provides an excellent account of that danger. “US national debt disaster looms-ai cant-stop it”   If you click on his link to a Cato Institute article on MMT you will be able to enjoy my article on that subject. “Modern Monetary Theory-critique”

Econ 101: Interest rates

President Trump wants the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates thinking that that would reduce the interest the Federal Government pays in interest on its debt, which this last year was $1.13 trillion (yes trillion). Prior to 2008, the Fed’s policy interest rate—the so called Fed funds rate—was the overnight rate on overnight (i.e. one day) loans between banks. I will skip how the Fed determines (brings about in the market) that rate. Since 2008, when the Fed started to pay interest on bank reserves (deposits at Federal Reserve Banks), the Fed’s policy rate has been the rate paid on bank reserves.

The interest rates paid on longer (than overnight) loans (e.g., one, two, ten-year bonds) are related to the overnight rate because rolling over overnight loans for ten years is an alternative to a ten-year bond. This note explains that relationship.

The interest rate on, say, a one-year bond reflects what the market (lenders and borrowers) expects the one-day rate to be each day over that period. That, in turn, depends on what the market expects the “real” rate to be plus the rate of inflation. Market rates reflect the real rate plus the inflation rate. If inflation increase, other things equal, market interest rates increase.

So, the interest rate on a ten-year bond will reflect what the market expects the overnight rate to be over the next ten years, which reflects the expected real rate and the expected inflation rate over that period. So what happens to interest rates (say the ten-year bond rate) when the Fed lowers its policy rate as President Trump wants? It depends primarily on what that does to the market’s expectation of inflation over the relevant future period.

On Wednesday Dec 10 the Fed reduced its policy rate .25% to 3.50 to 3.75%. On that day the ten-year bond rate fell from 4.19% the day before to 4.15% but by Friday (two days later) had returned to 4.18% In short the ten year Treasury bond rate is essentially unchanged by the quarter percent drop in the Fed’s policy rate. Why? Because the market expects the drop in the overnight rate to be largely offset by a slight increase in inflation over the next ten years.

If the Fed is correct that lowering its policy rate is appropriate for continuing the reduction of inflation to its 2% target, then the ten-year rate will fall as well. Clearly an excessive cut in the policy rate (one that increases the expected rate of inflation) will increase longer term interest rates rather than lower them. Class dismissed.

Econ 101: Interest Rates –Another Go

A month ago I reviewed the role of the Federal Reserve’s policy interest rate: https://wcoats.blog/2025/07/17/the-feds-policy-interest-rate/   The subject is so important and seemingly misunderstand by many that I am reviewing it again here.

Interest rates balance the supply and demand for financial assets. Households and firms that save some of their incomes demand financial assets. Households and firms that borrow to invest in productive capital or for whatever reason supply those assets (mortgages, bonds, etc.). Rates on longer term assets reflect the expected value of the short-term rates over that period. Thus the interest rate on a ten year bond reflects the expected value of one year bills over the ten year period plus a small risk premium because the string of short term loans are an alternative to the single fixed rate ten year loan.

The policy interest rate of the Federal Reserve is set by the Fed to pursue its objective of stable money (defined by the Fed as 2% inflation) and high employment (the Fed’s dual mandate imposed by Congress).

This note reviews the Fed’s policy rate. Since 2008 the Fed’s policy rate has been the rate it pays banks for the money they keep on deposit with a Federal Reserve Bank (of which there are twelve but that is unimportant for understanding the role of the policy rate), which on Aug 6 amounted to $3,332 billion. This rate is known as the Interest on Reserve Balances (IORB).

If the IORB matches comparable market rates for equally liquid funds (the so-called neutral rate), banks will maintain their existing Fed deposits. If it is set above that level, banks will have a financial incentive to place more money with the Fed, i.e. lend less in the market, thus creating fewer deposits and reducing the money supply. If the IORB is set lower than the neutral rate, banks will draw down their Fed deposits to lend more in the market thus increasing deposits and the money supply.

The IORB is currently (Aug 6) 4.5%, where it has remained since Dec 2024. At this rate broad money (M2=bank demand, time and savings deposits) has grown between 4% and 5% (from a year earlier) over the last three months. Given that inflation remains above the Fed’s target of 2% it would not seem wise to lower the policy rate and increase the rate of monetary growth especially as higher tariffs go into effect.

To repeat from earlier blogs (because it is so important), if markets anticipate higher inflation in the future (next few years), market interest rates on longer term debt will increase to preserve their real (inflation adjusted) value. Lowering the Fed’s policy rate prematurely would increase the market’s anticipation of higher inflation rates in the future. In other word, lowering the IORB now is likely to increase interest rates on longer term debt. Leave the Fed alone to do its job as best it can.

Econ 101: Trade deficits

A trade deficit is the difference between what we buy from the rest of the world and what it buys from us. To that extent rather than buying our goods and services, the rest of the world holds our dollars. These dollars are most often held in the form of US securities (Treasury bonds, etc.). Though trade deficits help finance Uncle Sam’s spending that is not financed with tax revenue, and thus reduce the crowding out of domestic investment by government deficit spending, President Trump doesn’t like them. Our trade deficit in 2024 was $918 billion.

Trade deficits can be reduced by reducing our imports (this is what tariffs tend to do) and/or by increasing our exports. We export many things including food and oil. Tourism and foreign students studying in the US generate about 9% of our export revenue. This has dropped sharply this year as the Trump administration has blocked or discouraged foreign students and badly treated other visitors, denying entry to some. It has suspended entry of new foreign students to Harvard and is threatening to revoke existing student visas at Harvard.

Trump has not only reached into the affairs of Harvard (and those of many other “enemies”), he is also demanding that the US dollar surpluses held by our trading partners be invested as dictated by the Trump administration. This was stated explicitly by US Treasury Secretary Bessent in an interview by Larry Kudlow on Fox Business. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgcmRJpE1pc  

It is hard to see much free market here. Gregg Ip nails it in his recent WSJ article “The U.S. Marches Toward State Capitalism With American Characteristics”  https://x.com/greg_ip?lang=en

Econ 101: How much should we tax the rich?

Should the wealthy pay more taxes than the rest of us? Of course, no one disagrees with that. But how much more? Based on 2022 tax year, the latest available, the top 10% of income earners (those with adjusted gross income above $178,661) paid 72% of the total of $2.1 trillion taxes collected. Is that too much or too little or about right. The bottom 50% of income earners (less than AGI of $50,339) paid 3.0%. What is a “fair” distribution of the tax burden and/or an economically efficient distribution? Corporate income taxes raised $0.42 trillion that year and should really be abolished in our globally trading world.

I have written earlier (many times actually) that I support abolishing all income taxes (personal and corporate) and relying fully on consumption taxation. While it can be challenging to determine where things are produced, there is no question about where we consume them. But while waiting for that miracle to happen, how much more should higher income people pay in taxes than lower income people?

Fair Tax Act of 2023
Replacing Social Security with a Universal Basic Income

My sense of fairness (and economists norm for tax neutrality) says that the tax rate should be the same for everyone. In other words, if your income is twice mine, you should pay twice the tax. If all income taxes and welfare payments were replace with a Universal Basic Income for all and flat consumption tax (VAT) the result would be mildly progressive tax rates on income.

A note on Social Security: it is not a saving plan in which what you saved is there to pay out to you when you retire. https://wcoats.blog/?s=social+security

US Crypto Reserve

The establishment by the Federal government of a fund to invest in crypto assets is a terrible idea. First the US has no surpluses to invest. It would need to borrow the money to invest. While the fund might be stocked to some extend with confiscated bitcoin and other digital assets “The use of seized cryptocurrencies, however, could run into roadblocks as these assets often go back to the victims of financial crimes”  “The Hill”   Second it is a terrible precedent for the government to support and manipulate the private market for private assets. Third crypto assets yield no benefit to the American economy. They do not represent or fund investments in productive capital in our economy. They are simply a toy for those who like to gamble.

Crypto assets should not be confused with technical improvements in payment technology (improvements in the speed, efficiency, and/or cost of making payments with “real” money). Such improvements are welcomed.

Trump posted to Truth Social that: “A U.S. Crypto Reserve will elevate this critical industry after years of corrupt attacks by the Biden Administration, which is why my Executive Order on Digital Assets directed the Presidential Working Group to move forward on a Crypto Strategic Reserve that includes XRP, SOL, and ADA.” Trump had previously dismissed crypto as a scam. “The Hill–Trump announces US crypto reserve”

Econ 101: Budget Cuts

What criteria should guild when to cut some program’s budget? We must first get beyond the fact the any cut will result in having less of something. If it is inefficiency or corruption that we give up—good riddance. But usually, it will be something that has some value. That does not necessarily mean that the cut should not be made.

Consider this example from my in-tray today:

“The Trump administration has made drastic cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that threaten to impact weather forecasting and other key services provided by the agency. 

In the wake of the wave of dismissals this week, lawmakers and former officials raised concerns about potential damage to services ranging from extreme weather responses to efforts to prevent objects from colliding in space.” “The Hill: Energy – Environment – NOAA cuts”

What should be considered when making such a decision is what other services were prevented by directing these resources to NOAA activities rather than alternative uses. Even if the government just increases it overall budget, the added taxes or borrowing will have alternative uses.

You will immediately understand the issue when you consider your own household budget. Your income is limited (unless you give up some leisure to work more hours). You might gain some pleasure spending more on X, but you can only do so by giving up some Y. If you benefit more from the extra X than you lose giving up Y, then you should do it. It passes the cost/benefit test of maximizing the benefit of your given income.  

In short, the fact that cutting the budget of some agency will cut some of its services is an incomplete argument for not cutting because if fails to take account of the rest of the cost/benefit assessment of the resulting reallocation of resources.

Such budget decisions are generally debated in Congress as it approves the government’s budget. It’s an imperfect process, like most of life, but it allows all views and pros and cons to be heard and considered. A body like Musk’s DOGE might be appropriate for evaluating the efficiency with which services are performed (perhaps proposing better information processing systems) and detecting corruption, but not for evaluating the desirability of such services themselves.

The Bitcoin Act

“With the introduction of the BITCOIN Act this summer, Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) called for the creation of a strategic Bitcoin reserve with the goal of reducing the government’s near-$36 trillion national debt. But can this kind of reserve actually solve our debt crisis?”  FREOPP: “Can a bitcoin reserve save the US?”

Wow. This is one of the dumbest ideas I have seen in a long time.

For starters, sovereign reserve funds consist of investments of foreign currencies earn from a country’s exports (usually oil) that it did not chose to spend on imports, i.e. the result of a trade surplus. The U.S. has a trade deficient (we buy more from abroad than we sell) not a surplus and thus have no extra foreign currency to invest. The US would need to borrow the money to invest in bitcoin when the US government is all ready $36 trillion in debt. But if it were a relatively sure way of earning more than the cost of borrowing it, it could help reduce the national debt.

Is bitcoin such an investment? As I write this, bitcoin is selling at $96,479, a 146% increase from one year ago. Not bad to say the least. If instead the bitcoin fund had purchased bitcoin in 2013 (at about $450) and sold it at the end of 2016 ($434) it would have earned a bit less than nothing. But if it purchased it at the beginning of 2018 at $13,657 it would have lost its shirt by the end of the year at $3,709. In short bitcoin prices have been all over the map. They are not redeemable for anything, cannot be used to pay for anything with rare exceptions, and are thus a purely speculative form of gambling. WC: “Bitcoin”   WC: “Bitcoin2”

Creating a bitcoin reserve would be beyond stupid.

But in the currency area there is competition for destructive stupidity.  The US dollar is by far the most used currency for international transactions for good economic reasons. The US recently has been making the dollar less attractive by freezing Russian and Afghan dollar accounts: WC: “The dollar again” But rather than focusing on measures that would preserve or restore the dollar’s attractiveness (Make the Dollar Great Again), president elect Trump has threatened any country that does not use it with 100% tariffs. Such bullying is enough to embarrass even the worst bullies. WP: “Trudeau Trump tariffs”

What to do about Social Security

Sixteen years ago I wrote about problems with the U.S. Social Security System. The system promises a given pension upon retirement (a defined benefit) that is financed by a given payroll tax. It is not a pool of saving that is drown down at retirement. It is pay as you go. https://wcoats.blog/2008/08/28/saving-social-security/

When Franklin Roosevelt established it, average life time after retirement was only about two years. Today life expectancy in the US is 79 years, or 14 years of retirement pension payments for those retiring at age 65. This fact, plus the declining population growth rate, means that the workers being taxed to pay for the currently retired are shrinking relative to those already retired and receiving benefits. The worker to beneficiary ratio of 3.3 in 2005 is projected to fall to 2.1 in 2040. At that point wage taxes will not be enough to cover the current benefits promised at that time.

Various proposals have been made to address this problem. The wage tax could be increased. Retirement age could be increased (20% voluntarily work after retirement already). As people live longer many choose to work longer for more than just the extra income. Pension benefits could be indexed to inflation rather than to wage growth (which has been greater than inflation). But more recently I have proposed replacing Social Security and other safety net programs with a Universal Basic Income for every man, woman and child without exception. Such a remake of our social safety net would have a number of very good features. https://wcoats.blog/2020/08/20/replacing-social-security-with-a-universal-basic-income/

Immigration and smuggling

America has a labor shortage. We need to widen the door to legal immigration and patrol our borders against illegal immigration and drug smuggling more effectively. The Biden administration has requested several billion dollars for that purpose and Congress should approve it. But how should it be paid for. “Congress funding of border control”

Every person and every country’s resources are limited. Their use for one thing means that they are not available to be used for something else. Budgets reflect our choices—our priorities. Increasing our border security would save tens of thousands of lives a year from reduced drug smuggling alone.

I suggest that we close our military bases in Europe and apply the money saved to increased border security and deficit reduction (sadly it would not be enough to reduce our debt only the deficit –i.e., the annual increase in debt). Our European bases cost $24.4 billion in 2018 (the latest figure I could find and with our support for the war in Ukraine it could only have increased). Our EU basses save no lives and add nothing to our security. They largely reduce the incentive for EU countries to provide for their own defense. But our immigration policy and border controls are a mess and should be improved.