Category: Economics

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.

Say what?

During his very busy first few days President Trump did some things I liked and some things I didn’t like.

Among the many executive orders I liked were: a) DEI rollback in federal agencies; b) Plan to reduce US troops in Europe by 20,000; c) Freeze on Federal hiring (hopefully reviewing where more employees are needed and where fewer are needed; and d) Delay in TikTok ban (though I doubt he can legally override Congress with an executive order).

Among those I disliked were: a) Pardoning  over 1,500 convicted of storming the Capital on Jan 6 in an effort to overturn the election results; b) Joining Israel’s genocide of Palestinians by lifting American sanctions on illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank “Trump-Israeli settlers in West Bank”; c) Halting Afghan refugee application processing and canceling flights for refugees approved to resettle in the U.S. This decision impacted thousands of refugees, including over 1,600 Afghans who had already been cleared for resettlement. “Refugee flights canceled”; and d) dropping government security protection for some of Trump’s enemies ( John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Anthony Fauci, etc.)—This in America!!!

But in Trump’s address to the World Economic Forum in Davos on Thursday he said that the US is back under new management and “open for business”, turbo-charged by the “largest deregulation campaign in history”. In the same speech he warmed our trading partners to “come make your product in America” or face more tariffs. Aside from the direct contradiction between these two statements the shocking ignorance (or Trump babble) of the second statement left me (almost) speechless. “Trump’s Davos speech”

For starters the US work force is fully employed. Though some German cars, for example, are already assembled in the US, to produce Porsche here would require taking workers from whatever they are now producing (perhaps those producing exports to Germany that Germany would no long be able to afford). Or we could increase legal immigration (badly needed already anyway as birth rates fall and our aging population increases retirees relative to workers) and bring German workers here to build their cars. If Trump really meant what he said, it would not benefit the US (America First) or anyone else. We do not enjoy a high standard of living because we are self-sufficient but because we trade globally for the best deals. But Trump doesn’t seem to believe in free markets.

https://wcoats.blog/2018/03/03/econ-101-trade-in-very-simple-terms/  

The politics of Trade
Econ 101: Trade balance

Trump

President Reagan pointed to our beacon on the hill as the foundation of our relationship and leadership with the rest of the world. Soon to be President Trump’s approach is to threaten and bully the rest of the world.

“US President-elect Donald Trump’s trade policy challenges the post-war global trading system. By rejecting the World Trade Organization’s principles of non-discrimination and reciprocity, Trump proposes a power-based approach that would fundamentally alter international economic relations, risking the predictability and fairness that have underpinned global trade for seven decades.”  “How Trump threatens the world trading system”

But he hasn’t stopped there.  Though promising to end our “forever wars” and restraint in our international relations, Trump is coming on as the most aggressive President in memory:

“Many people have been understandably astonished by Donald Trump’s recently proclaimed desires to “take back” the Panama Canal “in full, quickly and without question” and to take over the self-governing Danish territory of Greenland.

“While Trump has written that “For purposes of National Security and Freedom around the world, the United States feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity,” he would at least appear to be willing to pay Denmark for Greenland, as the U.S. paid Denmark for the Danish West Indies, renamed the U.S. Virgin Islands, in 1917.” “A thought on the Panama Canal and Greenland”

A bully, who forces rules on others that he disregards himself, will not serve America’s nor the worlds interests. We all want America to be safe, prosperous, and free. Thus, we must hope for and where possible promote a successful term for this and any other President. An important role can be, and hopefully will be played by the Republicans in Congress, starting with careful vetting of Trumps cabinet nominations. “Trump-bully-world-America-foreign-policy”

Econ 101: Our standard of living

In 1900, US income (GDP) was $4,096 per capita in 2023 dollars, while in 2023 it was $81,695. The US poverty rate fell from 56% to 11.1% over the same period. How was such a dramatic increase in our widely shared standard of living possible? The answer (without explaining how it came about) is increased labor productivity. Each worker has been able to produce more and more and hence earned a higher income.

Putting this differently, more and more people were automated out of their old jobs allowing them to find new ones and produce new things increasing overall output/incomes. Such dynamism does carry the temporary cost of finding new jobs and developing new skills. At any point over the last century that cost could have been prevented by freezing productivity improvements, but that would also have ended the growth in our incomes. Thank heavens such crazies did not win out. But it seems they never stop trying.

The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), the union that represents some 47,000 dockworkers, is threatening to strike if the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX), which oversees port operations, goes forward with plans to automate more of these port activities.

“’There has been a lot of discussion having to do with ‘automation’ on United States docks,’ Trump wrote in his post Thursday. ‘I’ve studied automation, and know just about everything there is to know about it. The amount of money saved is nowhere near the distress, hurt, and harm it causes for American Workers, in this case, our Longshoremen. Foreign companies have made a fortune in the U.S. by giving them access to our markets.’

“’For the great privilege of accessing our markets, these foreign companies should hire our incredible American Workers, instead of laying them off, and sending those profits back to foreign countries,” Trump wrote.” “WP: Trump – port-strike-automation”

Whether out of ignorance or deliberate obfuscation, Trump again misstates who gains and who pays. When foreign ships are unloaded in American ports it is the American consumers who benefit from any cost savings at the ports.  Trump also claims (though he surely knows better) that China would pay for his high tariffs on imports from China.

A tariff, of course, is a tax the US levies at our borders on goods we import from abroad. It’s paid in the first instance by the American importers. Like any other tax, it is added to the price of selling these imports to the American public. It’s very purpose is to reduce domestic demand for such imports in order to encourage (more expensive and less efficient) domestic production of such goods. Please, let’s not stop technical progress and the higher income it enables.

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”

America’s Trump style Foreign Policy

The world benefits from rules of interaction that provide peace and cooperation. Rather than building more weapons of war, we could build more temples of beauty. Championing rules most countries respect and aspire to and being the largest (or perhaps second largest) economy in the world, the United States has naturally led such an international order. Retaining that role would be jeopardized if the U.S. did not diplomatically fashion such rules that were embraced and respected by most other countries and if the U.S. did not itself abide by the rules it had championed.

America’s leadership role is being jeopardized by our hypocrisy, such as condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine while given a blank check and American weapons for Israel’s invasion of Gaza and Lebanon and ignoring its abuse of its occupied territories in the West Bank of Palestine. America’s embrace of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC’s) arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and America’s condemnation of the ICC’s arrest warrant for Israel’s PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s and its former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant is the very definition of hypocrisy.  

President elect Donald Trump’s style of negotiating international agreements reflects more the behavior of a bully than a diplomat. Last Monday Trump threatened to levy a 25% percent tariff on all imports from Mexica and Canada, despite the large economic harm to the US as well as Mexica and Canada and despite the laws and agreements it would violate, if they did not stop the illegal drugs and aliens entering the US across their borders. WC: “tariffs”

“Trump’s threat spurred outrage across the northern and southern U.S. borders, prompting backlash and warnings of retaliatory tariffs from both Mexico and Canada.”  The Hill: “Takeaways from trumps new tariff threat”

“Donald Trump’s angry threat to impose 25 percent tariffs on all U.S. imports from Mexico… is widely being depicted as a bluff….

“But amid all this parsing of Trump’s intentions, a crucial fact about his new move is getting lost: At the center of it is a lie. This lie is hiding in plain sight: It’s the underlying suggestion that Mexico is not doing anything to stop migrants from coming and that Trump’s threat of tariffs is needed to change that….

“All this is laid bare by the sharp response to Trump’s threat that new Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum issued Tuesday. Her statement is getting attention for its barbed claim that American guns trafficked to Mexico are fueling crime and violence there among gangs supplying U.S. markets with drugs. ‘Tragically, it is in our country that lives are lost to the violence resulting from meeting the drug demand in yours,’ Sheinbaum noted acidly, suggesting that the two countries’ interrelated national challenges underscore the need for cross-border cooperation rather than Trumpian confrontation.”

She further noted that: “You may not be aware that Mexico has developed a comprehensive policy to assist migrants from different parts of the world who cross our territory en route to the southern border of the United States. As a result, and according to data from your country’s Customs and Border Protection (CBP), encounters at the Mexico-United States border have decreased by 75% between December 2023 and November 2024….

“What this polite (and euphemistic) language says is that Mexico is already acting extensively to thwart migrants who travel through that country—originating south of Mexico—so they don’t reach our own southern border. As Sheinbaum notes, this is partly why border apprehensions in the United States have dropped sharply of late.” New Republic: “Mexico’s Sheinbaum responds to Trump tariffs”

So, what did our bully in chief do next?  “President-elect Donald Trump has said he had a “wonderful” conversation with Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum, in an apparent easing of the tensions raised this week over trade tariffs….  After Wednesday’s phone call, both leaders described the conversation in positive terms. Trump said on Truth Social, his social media platform, that it was a ‘very productive conversation’ and thanked Mexico for its promised efforts.”

Perpetuating his original lie, “Trump indicated that Sheinbaum would stop migration through Mexico, ‘effectively closing the southern border’.

“Sheinbaum said she had explained her country’s efforts to deal with migrants and that her position would ‘not be to close borders but to build bridges’”.  https://on.ft.com/49czcol

Trump may or may not be a good negotiator (6 of his businesses have filled for bankruptcy) but his approach is that of a bully. Given America’s dominant status in the world, bullying rather than leading and negotiating in the search for mutually beneficial compromises will hasten American decline from leadership.

Tariffs

“Posting on his Truth Social platform, Trump said [Monday] that on the first day of his presidency he will charge Mexico and Canada a 25% tariff on all products coming into the U.S. He added in a separate social-media post that he would impose an additional 10% tariff on all products that come into the U.S. from China,… That would come on top of existing tariffs the U.S. has already imposed on Chinese goods.

“’This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!’ Trump wrote.” WSJ: Trump pledges tariffs on Mexico Canada and China”

A tariff is a tax on an import. They are permitted by the World Trade Organization when leveed on goods receiving state subsidies in order to create a level playing field for trade. Such global trade has made an enormous contribution to the standard of living around the world.  “Ernie Tedeschi, former chief economist for President Joe Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers, said the North American tariffs would cost the typical American household almost $1,000 per year.” WP: “Trump tariffs-China Mexico Canada”

The normal expectation is that the tariff will reduce U.S. demand for the taxed import and encourage its domestic production. But the US labor force is fully employed and can only increase domestic production of the targeted goods by shifting workers from the production of goods the US has a comparative advantage in thus reducing our overall income. Though employment of manufacturing workers has declined in the US, manufacturing output has not because worker productivity has increased. In fact, our imports have not shipped American jobs overseas as increasing productivity has resulted in reduced manufacturing employment most everywhere in the world, including China, surely a good thing. WC: “Trade protection and corruption”

Immediately after Trump’s tariff announcement, the exchange rate of the dollar strengthened. A stronger dollar reduces the cost of imports (but increases the cost to foreigners of our exports), thus undoing to some extent the demand reducing impact of the tariff. But it hurts our exports because of their higher price to foreign purchaser and reduces our overall standard of living.

China and others hit with this tax are likely to retaliate with their own tariffs. “Under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which took effect in 2020, goods moving among the three North American nations cross borders on a duty-free basis. ‘Obviously, unilaterally imposing a 25 percent tariff on all trade blows up the agreement,’ said John Veroneau, a partner at Covington & Burling in Washington.”  WP: “Trump tariffs-China Mexico Canada”

Should Trump actually impose these tariff’s he would (again) be violating the law, which only allows the President to impose tariffs without Congressional approval for national security reasons: WC: “Tariff abuse”

Trump’s threatened tariffs are not even leveed on the goods he wants to restrict (drugs and illegal aliens). Thus, unlike traditional tariffs they would be leveed to pressure Mexico and Canada to take other actions Trump wants. They are bargaining ploys. So at the cost of raising prices and lowering incomes in the US, weakening the global trading rules from which we have benefited so much, and weakening the checks and balances limiting an over extended executive branch, Trump may be playing his bargaining game again. But in my opinion the cost to us and the world trading system is too high.

Econ 101:  Money

My Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago dealt with a monetary policy issue. My five years as an Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Virginia allowed me to lecture extensively about monetary policy and my 26 years at the International Monetary Fund were largely devoted to providing technical assistance to member (primarily post conflict) county central banks (including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Croatia, Egypt, Iraq Israel, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Serbia, South Sudan, Turkey, West Bank and Gaza, and Zimbabwe). In case you didn’t know, central banks issue the currency (money) of their respective countries. So, I know a lot about “money” and like talking about it.

And it’s not that I haven’t already written a lot about the subject. For a few examples see: “Econ 101-the Value of Money”   “Money”  “A Libertarian Money”

A lot of interesting things are happening these days in the monetary area, but they pertain to payments (transferring money from one person to another via PayPal, Venmo, Zelle, Visa, etc.) rather than money itself. I want to talk to you about “money” (not payments) as I might with my granddaughter. Money is what is transferred in payment.

Money exists because none of us are self-sufficient and must trade what we produce with others who produce the other things we want. I will skip the presumably well-known story of barter trade and its challenge of the double coincidence of wants (you have what I want, and I have what you want so we trade). Giving you a commonly accepted asset, that you can hold until you want to buy something from someone else and can “pay” for it by passing that asset on to the next seller is the essence of money. In addition, it becomes the unit of account (the unit for stating prices). Thus, money is a unit of account, means of payment and store of value.

But now dear granddaughter, lets dig deeper to discuss where this money comes from and its key features in today’s modern electronic (digital) world. First of all, I can’t pay you with any old asset equal in value to your sale price (the barter problem). I must pay you with “money,” an asset universally accepted within the country. To cut to the bottom line, money is the asset issued by our central bank (any of our twelve Federal Reserve Banks) or creditable claims on the Fed’s monetary liability—the U.S. dollar. Until 1933 these dollars could be redeemed for gold at $20.67 per once. Now the U.S. government accepts them in payment of our taxes denominated in dollars, which insures their ultimate value.

Federal Reserve notes (dollar bills) are the most direct manifestation of our money. But almost 90% of our money (the asset with which we can pay for things) is in the form of deposits at American banks, and credit unions. These figures can be a bit misleading because over 60% of our currency is held abroad.

When you pay someone with cash, they receive a direct claim on the Federal Reserve. When you pay with your bank deposit, your bank’s deposit with (claim on) a Federal Reserve bank is transferred to the payee’s bank, which credits the payee’s bank account with the designated amount. The asset paid and received is still ultimately a claim on the Fed.

But our demand deposits with our banks amount to 15.9 trillion dollars, while the reserves that our banks keep with the Federal Reserve Banks amount to only $3.3 trillion reflecting our “fractional reserve” system. What is going on here? How did banks create more of our money (ultimate claims on the central bank) than it backs with its reserves at the Fed?

When teaching money and bank at the U. of Virginia I loved walking the class through the money/banking multiplier that resulted from our fractional reserve backing system. It has become fashionable for some to claim that banks create deposits (money) by making loans. When you received a mortgage loan from your bank, they say it creates the deposits placed in our deposit account. This is sort of true and sort of not true. Your bank actually pays your mortgage loan to the account of the person selling their home and their account is almost surely in another bank. That means that your bank must have sufficient reserve balances at the Fed to transfer to the seller’s bank.

I will leave the details of the bank money multiplier to the Money and Banking class you will hopefully take when you go to college, but the fact that your deposits are only partially backed with reserves at the Fed (the rest of the backing being the bank’s loans and other financial assets, is what lies behind the occasional bank runs we saw in the movies before deposit insurance was introduced to assure depositors that they could get the money back even if their bank failed. If enough bank borrowers default on their loans, the bank could become insolvent. Only the first to withdraw their deposits will be able to get their money back. The potential risk of such runs on a bank only partial backing your deposits with reserves at the central bank motivated the Chicago Plan of 100% reserve banking. “Protecting Bank Deposits”

If bank deposits of US dollars are money, what about cybercurrencies? What are they ultimately claims on? Bitcoin, as you hopefully know, is not a claim on anytime. They can’t be redeemed for anything. It is not unit of account or means of payment for hardly anything—it is not money. It is a speculative “asset” for those who like to speculate (gamble). “Cryptocurrencies-the bitcoin phenomena”  “The future of bitcoin exchanges”  “Bitcoin-Cybercurrencies and Blockchain”  “The difference between bitcoin and FTX”

But there is a class of cryptocurrencies that claim to be redeemable for money, such as US dollars—so called stable coins. The validity of this claim, as with your bank re your deposits there, depend on the details of its contract and the faithfulness of its adherence to that contract. Tether and USD Coin are the most popular US dollar stable coins.

But to use a stable coin for making payments, the person or firm you are paying must have the software or card reader needed to use the cryptocurrency you want to use. You might remember (probably not you, dear granddaughter) when not so many stores could accept visa, or MasterCard (or the Shell Oil, or Texico gas cards). Payment technology has continued to evolve and improve, but if it is not transferring money (US dollars in our case)—i.e. an asset ultimately redeemable for the Federal Reserve’s liability, it will not get you very far.

Other than handing someone cash, paying with your bank account requires a messaging and authorization system. Do you still write checks occasionally—so sorry. A check both indicates the amount to be paid and authorizes its transfer. Almost all payment instructions and authorizations are made electronically these days. Many central banks are considering introducing digital cash in place of or along side their currency notes (Central Bank Digital Currency). When offered through a bank, a CBDC would have the advantage of 100% reserve backing (it would be a direct claim on the Fed). On the other hand, modern electronic means of payment leave little room for further improvement as might be offered by CBDCs. “Econ 101-Retail Central Bank Digital Currency-CBDCs”

To make payments, or send money, abroad, your money must be exchanged for the money of the recipient. I regularly send dollars to Afghanistan, which are received as Afghani. A massive foreign exchange market in which the exchange rate of one currency for another is determined exists for that purpose. Such payments can be made more quickly and cheaply if both parties are willing to use the same currency. Thus, the US dollar is rather widely accepted for cross border payments. “The Dollar Again”  The Special Drawing Right (SDR) of the International Monetary Fund serves this purpose for governments but is not widely used. “What are SDRs?” Stable coins redeemable for gold provide another promising potential unit given golds historical importances. The best existing example is e-gold by Global Standard (to which I am an advisor).

But not all monies behave the same. The behavior of the value of each (its inflation rate) depends on how its issuing central bank manages its supply. Some central bank’s supply whatever their government needs, generally resulting in high inflation rates. Some, such as our Federal Reserve, regulate its money’s supply in an attempt to maintain an inflation target (in the US the target is 2%). Others follow currency board rules that leave to the market the determination of a supply that keeps the currency’s value consistent with that of another currency (The Euro in the case of the Bosnian dinar or the Bulgaria lev). So dear granddaughter there are many interesting things to study about money.

Why don’t you pop over and let’s discuss it more over lunch? Oh, I forgot that you are in the West Coast Washington (state) while I am near the East Coast Washington (DC). Well at least we can meet on FaceTime or Zoom (or even the old fashion telephone). But I would love to meet one way or the other.

P.S. In 2002 as Patrick Honohan and I were finishing up the Bank-Fund Financial Stability Assessment of Egypt (Patrick led the World Bank team and I led the IMF team) I said in an email “Patrick, why don’t you just come across the street and discuss this over tea?” Patrick replied: “Warren, I am in Dublin. I moved here several months ago.” He later became the Governor of the Central Bank of Ireland.

Econ 101 – Price gouging

The good news is that the Presidential campaign has moved on to the presentation of policy positions—at least on Kamila Harris’s part–Trump’s response at a Pennsylvania campaign stop over the weekend was that “she’s gone “full communist.”

The bad news is that in addition to continuing some of Trump’s bad economic policies (tariffs, buy American protectionism, etc.) some of Harris’s economic policies are bad. Here I will take a closer look at her promise to ban “price gouging” by grocery stores.

In March of 2020 US. Broad Money (M2) growth jumped from its usual 5 to 6% per annum growth to over 25% a year later. As a result, U.S. Inflation (CPI) began to increase rapidly above its 2% target at the beginning of 2021. The Federal Reserve did not begin to tighten monetary policy until a year later when inflation had already reached 8% per annum. In addition, federal government deficit spending exploded over the same period. To fight this inflation the Fed’s policy interest rate was increased from almost zero from March 2022 to 5.3% by mid 2023 where it remains, thus ending M2 growth.

Since its disastrous late start in monetary tightening, the Fed’s management of the return of inflation to its 2% target has been as good as I could hope. Inflation has fallen below 3% without (yet) causing an economic slowdown. My guess is that the Fed is slightly behind the curve and should have started reducing it policy rate earlier this month.

So what is Harris’s ban on price gouging all about? “Perhaps Harris’s most surprising policy announcement was her plan to ban “price gouging” in grocery and food prices. While details were sparse, the measure would include authorizing the Federal Trade Commission to impose large fines on grocery stores that impose “excessive” price hikes on customers, her campaign said. Grocery prices remain a top concern for voters: Even though the rate of increase leveled off this year, grocery prices have jumped 26 percent since 2019, according to Elizabeth Pancotti, director of special initiatives at the Roosevelt Institute.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/08/16/kamala-harris-2024-policy-child-tax-credit/

In an excellent editorial last Friday (I urge you to read it) the Washington Post asked: “‘Price gouging’ is not causing inflation. So why is the vice president promising to stamp it out?”   https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/08/16/harris-economy-plan-gimmicks/

Stores only offer goods for sale when they can be sold for more than their cost to the story by enough to pay for their own employees, cost of their store and its maintenance and “normal” profit (return on the investment made by the store’s owners). The erratic economic events of the last few years create disruptions in these normal relationships that can produce temporary losses and/or usually large profits.

The supply and demand for a good can be matched by its price or by some other form of rationing. If a pandemic suddenly spikes the demand for facemasks, it will take a while for manufacturers to increase the supply. Until that happens demand will exceed supply.  Dr. Fauci and the government can ban sales to us common people in order to reserve the existing supply for doctors and nurses, or the market will increase the price such that only those with the most pressing need (or desire) will pay the higher price of the available supply. Rationing by prices has two big advantages. The first is that each individual (rather than government bureaucrats) determines whether their need is strong enough to pay the higher price. This makes it MUCH more likely that face masks will go to those with the highest need. Second it maximizes the market incentive to increase production and supply faster.

It the supply (relative to demand) shortage is not rationed by price, some other rationing mechanism and criteria must take its place. One is first come first served until the shelves are empty. During the wage and price freeze imposed by President Richard Nixon starting on Aug 15, 1971, gasoline was rationed by long lines of cars waiting for their turn at gas stations. It is not surprising that freely determined market prices have served us so well.