Kentucky’s Economy: Structural Problems and Solutions

November 20th, 2009 by brian.strow

Former Presidential advisor Herb Stein once said, “Unsustainable trends tend to come to [an] end”. In other words, ignoring reality doesn’t change reality. That’s why it is important to use this economic recession to ask the “big” questions. What structural problems exist in Kentucky’s economy that impede economic growth? What can be done to fix said structural problems?

The Pew Center on the States recently published a report entitled “Beyond California” in which they rank each state’s economic situation based both on the depth of its current recession and the long term structural issues of each state’s public finances. According to these rankings, Kentucky finished 11th worst among states. Kentucky’s poor score largely reflects Kentucky’s unwillingness to address long term structural problems with its state budget. These structural problems include high levels of debt, massive unfunded liability in its state pension systems, high levels of taxes and spending, misdirected government spending, and a burdensome regulatory system. Left unchecked, these factors will drag down Kentucky’s economic recovery and negatively impact both current residents and future generations.

In 2009, state government spending accounted for 23.3% of Kentucky’s gross state product, making Kentucky the ninth highest government spending state, relative to income, in the country. The Commonwealth needs to determine what the goals of its government spending are. Is the goal to build roads and provide education, or is it to redistribute income? Investing in human and physical infrastructure can grow the state economy. Redistributing income still spends money, but doesn’t provide growth and can actually limit it. Kentucky ranks 8th highest amongst states in welfare spending as a percentage of gross state product.

When you compare state vs. local spending, Kentucky’s spending is one of the most concentrated of any state in the union. The primary reason for concentration at the state level is to enable income redistributions from the wealthier parts of Kentucky to the poorer areas. As spending decisions are best made by people who benefit from the spending, Kentucky would benefit from shifting much of its spending from the state level to the local level.

Kentucky could also lower spending at the state and local levels and stimulate growth by eliminating existing prevailing wage laws. Such action would allow the state to not only increase infrastructure, but to do so at a lower price. The resulting money saved could then be used to pay down existing state debt.

The state should also examine its spending on its health and pension plans for state workers. At last count, the state had $26 billion of unfunded liabilities in its pension system. As of 2007, Kentucky’s pension system was at 70.3% of funded liability, or 11th worst among states according to Standard and Poors. Liability is most easily managed in a defined contribution plan. Going forward, the state could benefit from moving employees to defined contribution plans rather than defined benefit retirement plans.

As unfunded liability has risen, so too has spending on state employee health care. A recent study by the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce noted that spending on employee health care has risen by over 174% since 2000 – a rate five times faster than economic growth during this period. That is an unsustainable trend. Economic reality dictates that health care costs for state employees and retires need to be shared with said employees and retirees.

In terms of the Pacific Research Center’s ranking of each state’s level of economic freedom, the state of Kentucky ranks only 40th. One of the largest factors restricting economic freedom in Kentucky is their refusal to enact right-to-work legislation. Government policies that require certificates of need or closed shop laws that inhibit peoples’ right to work reduce economic freedom and make it difficult to attract new industries to the state. Right-to-work states have grown faster in the last decade than closed shop states.

The state should also look at how other states have improved educational outcomes. For example, numerous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of charter schools in improving educational performance both for those students who attend charter schools and for those students who stay behind in their own public schools. Kentucky is one of only a few states that don’t allow charter schools.

In order for economic recovery to occur in Kentucky, the state needs to find ways to spend less, get more for the money they do spend, free the state from burdensome regulations that limit wealth creation, and pay down state debt; all without increasing the tax burden on Kentucky businesses and citizens. At 9.4%, the Kentucky state tax burden is already in the highest half of states as measured by total tax burden. Although the needed changes would not be easy, they are necessary for Kentucky’s economy to grow to its fullest potential.

What lies ahead for Kentucky’s economic future? Only time will tell, but we would be foolish to continue on our current path and yet expect different results. Unless Kentucky state politicians enact meaningful economic reforms, we can expect that Kentucky, which already ranks 42nd in per capita gross state product, will only fall further behind.

Vacant Seats, Vacant Minds

November 13th, 2009 by brian.strow

If monetary policy is so important, why do there continue to be two vacancies on the Board of Governors? The 12 member Federal Open Market Committee which determines monetary policy for the US hasn’t actually had 12 members for over a year.

The last three political appointments to the Board of Governors (two by President Bush and one by President Obama) were just that – political appointments. Neither Elizabeth Duke (MBA), Kevin Warsh (attorney), nor Daniel Tarullo (attorney) are trained economists let alone economists who are trained in monetary policy.

To repeat, of the seven spots on the Board of Governors, there are only two economists. Is there any wonder that the Board votes unanimously with Chairman Bernanke? Do they know about the risks of monetary stimulus? Do they even care? Where is the dissenting voice on the Board? Where are the educated voices on the board? Where are two of the seven members? Does anyone even care, or shall we just follow Chairman Bernanke everywhere like a shepherd with his sheep?

Capitalism is taking a bad wrap for what amount to government/Federal Reserve mistakes. Markets are distorted by bad monetary policy. Is it really too much to ask for a qualified appointment or two to sit on the Board of Governors?

http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/default.htm

The Tea Interval

November 6th, 2009 by brian.strow

When I was in Rome, I did as Romans do (at least with respect to wine and pasta). When I was in Australia last December, I watched a lot of cricket- mind you not “a lot” relative to Australians given their test match against South Africa, but a lot relative to my understanding and enjoyment of the sport.

What I came to appreciate in cricket was the tea interval. In a nutshell, players spend a lot of time throwing balls and hitting them with a bat. This process is repeated ad nausea until it is time to break for tea. That is, even those who believe that cricket isn’t a futile waste of resources have an exit strategy – they must break for tea.

Now I look at the US Federal Government and the Federal Reserve and find these guys about as entertaining as watching cricket. They certainly seem to stay busy though, intervening in the economy, chasing imaginary rabbits down imaginary holes.

One of my many beefs with current government intervention is that they haven’t scheduled any tea intervals. That is, I don’t hear Congress or the Federal Reserve talking in any meaningful sense about their exit strategy from micromanaging the US economy.

Instead of how to unwind expansionary fiscal policy, Congress proposes expanding discretionary domestic spending in 2010 by over 12%.

The Federal Reserve left the federal funds rate alone again this week keeping their foot on the money accelerator.

GM (Government Motors) announced Monday that they would not, after all, sell off their European Opel unit. GM “execs” have said nothing about a strategy to return GM back into private hands.

How will the government know when to stop fiscal stimulus, monetary expansion, and the government takeover of private business if they don’t schedule a tea interval?

If Tuesday’s election results are any indication, “tea partiers” may be planning a forced tea interval in 2010.

Too Big to Fail - A US Government Stategy

October 30th, 2009 by brian.strow

At the heart of a capitalist economy are voluntary transactions. When two parties voluntarily engage in a transaction, both are made better off and wealth is created. These voluntary actions are the “free” in free markets. The US economy is not a free market economy, unless by free, you mean lots of people get things they don’t pay for.

One variable to look at in determining economic freedom, then, is government spending. By definition, the government engages in involuntary exchange. The government has the ability to forcibly take money from people and unilaterally decide how that money is spent. Involuntary exchange rarely creates wealth. So as the percentage of our economy under the control of the government increases, wealth creation slows. The Soviet Union didn’t collapse because communists got bored ruling over other peoples’ lives; they ran out of money.

The percentage of the US economy that is controlled by government fiat rather than voluntary exchange has been growing over time.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1950_2010&chart=F0-total&units=p

Government spending, in dollars, has more than doubled since 2000.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?chart=F0-total

Government spending isn’t just increasing, its growth is accelerating. According to this week’s WSJ, the proposed 2010 discretionary spending bills plan to increase spending by 12.1% above 2009 levels. The results of this action are slower long term economic growth and more of our economy controlled by government dictates. Eventually this strategy will come to an end when one of two things happen. Either politicians bankrupt the country (as the communists did in the Soviet Union); or, the American public decides to put politicians in charge who will control government spending. Currently, neither major American political party has any credibility on lowering government spending.

Soon Canada will be the “low” government spending country of the Northern Hemisphere, eh.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/04/29/william-watson-our-obama-opportunity.aspx

Oh Canada! (And Australia)

October 23rd, 2009 by brian.strow

This is a tip of the toboggan to Canada (the hat not the sled). When I was in college I used to make fun of Canada for being so far in debt. Sure they had a  bigger social safety net than the US, but they didn’t pay for it. In the 1980’s, Canada’s government debt/GDP ratio was roughly twice that of the US.

That was then, this is now. Between 1997 and 2008 Canada ran 11 straight years of budget surpluses. At the same time, the US government went on a borrowing binge. The IMF has published updated debt/GDP ratios along with predictions based on each country’s budgets.

Government Debt/GDP Source IMF World Economic Outlook, April 2009

2006 2009 2014

US 61.9 87.0 106.7

Canada 67.9 75.4 66.2

The US wins! Oh wait, it’s like golf, the lowest score wins. The fun part is that 2016 is the year that the social security trust fund will need to be bailed out by general tax revenue. So unless something happens, US debt/GDP isn’t going down any time soon.

Just so the Canadians out there don’t gloat too much, Australia’s debt/GDP ratio is even better.

Government Debt/GDP Source IMF World Economic Outlook, April 2009

2006 2009 2014

Australia 9.6 11.3 16.6

The moral of the story? Some people learn from their own mistakes (Canadian politicians), some people learn from the mistakes of others (Australian politicians), and some people think that they don’t ever make mistakes (American politicians).

From Each According to His Ability…

October 16th, 2009 by brian.strow

Karl Marx was on to something… sort of. Even Mr. Wealth Redistribution himself understood the following:

  1. People have physical needs. If those needs aren’t met, they die.
  2. Needs are not met by manna falling from heaven. People must engage in production (he called this dialectical materialism).
  3. People have different abilities

So he proposed: Everyone should work and the product of their work should be redistributed based on need, hence the phrase, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need”.

Current US government policies can’t even be described as Marxist. Current policy is based on the creed: “From each according to whether or not they voted for the current political regime, to each according to how powerful their political lobby is”.

Examples: Organized groups and money they received:

Unions: special consideration in GM bankruptcy, special taxation of health benefits (consideration of card check replacing open ballots, and consideration of changing unionization rules for airlines)

Banks: Billions of bailout dollars and FHA insuring more questionable home loans

Corporate Farmers: Billions in farm subsidies

Blue States: Special protection from taxation of premium insurance packages

Even John Maynard Keynes went to the extreme and said that the government could stimulate the economy by hiring people to dig ditches and hiring others to fill them in. As dumb as that sounds, he at least made people work for the money. The federal government now just hands out money.

Of the first $100 billion in stimulus money spent according to Recovery.Gov, over $80 billion went to categories labeled “Income Security or Medicaid”. Our idea of stimulus has literally morphed from being a good time in the business cycle to build infrastructure or national parks to it being a good time to hand out money for nothing but votes.

Now the administration proposes handing seniors $250 payments.

There is only so much money you can borrow from future generations. At some point, this generation needs to wake up to the reality that wealth creation requires work. The road to economic recovery is a road paved by construction workers, not a road that falls pre-built from heaven.

Why are Central Bankers still Focused on the Inflation Rate? Or, “Fool me once, shame on… shame on you, if fool me, you can’t get fooled again” (President George W. Bush)

October 1st, 2009 by brian.strow

If loose monetary policy distorted market signals creating a financial collapse, why is looser monetary policy seen as the cure? At least the powers that be are consistent. The US got into trouble by borrowing and spending too much, so their solution is to have the federal government spend more and the Federal Reserve lower the cost of borrowing.

One of the benefits of a recession is the opportunity to learn from your mistakes. Have policymakers learned anything? Let’s see, the Fed has lowered the cost of borrowing, the Federal Housing Authority has a 50 to 1 (Bear Stearnsesque) leverage ratio, the federal debt is quickly approaching $11.8 Trillion, and Congress is holding up free trade agreements with Panama, South Korea, and Columbia. Nope, it is as if policy makers are wearing blinders. They are committed to making the same mistakes they have just made, and refuse even to learn from mistakes made by previous generations (protectionism).

The US needs to increase its savings rate, so the sooner the Fed stops destroying the value of the dollar, the sooner we can get back to the business of saving. The Fed should stop “inflation targeting” and begin making sure that market actors see prices and market signals that reflect the self-correcting nature of the economy. If we don’t see that we were “fooled” by ultra loose monetary policy, we are destined to be fooled again.

Average Prices are Signals that Dictate Economic Traffic Or, What if a one way street signs were randomly posted in the wrong direction?

September 25th, 2009 by brian.strow

During the 1990’s and into the 2000’s, many developing economies increased their ability to export cheap consumer goods to the US and other industrialized markets. All things being equal, this placed deflationary pressure on consumer prices in the US. In absence of activist monetary policy, we would have seen deflation as measured by the consumer price index. What we had instead was a Federal Reserve increasing the money supply to prevent deflation.

What we need to understand is three fold. Firstly, what signs was deflation trying to give the US economy? Secondly, what signs did the Fed give the economy instead? Thirdly, what were the consequences of getting our signals crossed?

  1. Pretend that we held money supply constant while cheap consumer goods flooded the US market. We would have the same amount of money chasing more goods, i.e. deflation in the short term and a reduction in real GDP in the long term. In the short term deflation causes consumers to cut back on consumption. Why buy today if stuff is cheaper tomorrow? Thus, the market’s natural response to an increased trade deficit would have been an increase in domestic savings and a reduction in said trade deficit.

  1. Being overly scared of deflation, the Fed kept their foot pressed down on increasing the money supply to generate a positive rate of inflation. In so doing they took interest rates to historically low levels. These low interest rates acted as signals to consumers, businesses, and the government that borrowing was unusually cheap. The result was an unprecedented increase in consumer, business, and government borrowing. This borrowing increased the current demand for foreign goods driving up the US trade deficit and destabilizing the international economic system.

  1. When the proper response was to increase savings rates, the Fed put up street signs that said borrow as fast as you can. In so doing the Federal Reserve aided the creation of asset bubbles and sowed the seeds of the global financial meltdown. Had the Fed allowed the market to naturally read the deflationary signs, the global meltdown could have been converted.

The moral of the story is that average prices are just as much signals to the macro economy as individual prices are to the micro economy. To think that the government or a central bank has more information than the economy on what the “right” prices are is preposterous. The recent financial meltdown’s causes can be traced right back to the doorstep of the Federal Reserve. Capitalism works best when prices are set by markets, not central planners.

What good is a compass if you don’t know how to read it; Or, Prices, even average ones, are signals

September 18th, 2009 by brian.strow

Should price stability be a legitimate goal for the Federal Reserve (or any central bank)? To answer this, let’s take a step back. Should the government be in charge of creating price stability for automobiles? When the price of autos increase, should the government increase the supply of autos? When the price of autos falls, should the government buy up automobiles on the open market? After all, the government (i.e. taxpayers) owns a car company (GM) and could manipulate the equilibrium price of automobiles.

Why might the government like price stability in cars? You could argue that producers could better plan production if they knew in advance what their cars would sell for. Consumers might be able to better plan their car purchases as well. So what’s the problem? By masking real prices, the government covers up information from market actors. Prices aren’t arbitrary or meaningless. The price of every product is a little piece of information telling the market how to efficiently allocate resources.

Does the government know better than the market how to allocate resources in the car (or for that matter any other) industry? History tells us that centrally planned economies fail in part because planners lack information. Hayek’s “man on the street” is the guy with information, and he uses this information he sees from prices to make decisions to maximize his own self interest. An ill informed central planner sets prices only to cause surpluses and shortages of products they mis-price.

If there is no individual price the government can set better than markets, why do we believe that a central bank can set average prices better than the market? There is an aggregation problem here that monetary policy activists need to come to terms with. Setting one price is bad; setting two prices is bad; setting three prices is bad; setting all prices is good? You have to go back to the 1700’s to find economists believing that inflation/deflation doesn’t affect relative prices.

What could possibly go wrong when a central bank uses activist monetary policy to achieve price stability at the cost of ignoring market signals? Tune in to next week’s post.

Homeostasis and Economic Equilibrium: Steroids and Economic Stimulus

September 14th, 2009 by brian.strow

For a long time, I have been fascinated by the parallels in the study of equilibrium across academic disciplines. Biology, chemistry, and physics represent a short list of disciplines where the study of equilibrium can benefit our understanding of equilibrium in economics. Given economists general interest in baseball, I’ll make my first “equilibrium” post have to do with steroids.

A properly functioning human body engages in homeostasis. Homeostasis is the ability or tendency of an organism or cell to maintain internal equilibrium by adjusting its physiological processes. Organisms routinely face exogenous shocks which require they use their natural self-correcting mechanisms to return to equilibrium.

Now, let’s say that a pro athlete isn’t content with his body’s equilibrium home run production. By taking anabolic steroids, testosterone levels can be raised above their natural state which in turn can improve home run production. One of the many downsides of anabolic steroid use, however, is that the human body in an effort to balance the exogenous shock either lowers or completely stops natural testosterone production. In the short term, then, the athlete becomes dependent upon anabolic steroids to maintain the needed testosterone to perform at their expected level. Normal testosterone production may return to steroid users after a lengthy abstinence from steroid use.

Now let’s say that politicians aren’t content with the current equilibrium employment. Their solution is to create employment by creating new government jobs. One of the many downsides of government job creation, however, is that economic actors (either existing or potential) in an effort to balance this exogenous shock either lower or completely stop natural job creation. Normal job production may return to the economy after a lengthy abstinence from stimulus use.

Every government job has to be funded from somewhere. If it is funded through increased taxation on current economic activity, then producers won’t be able to afford to hire as many non government workers. The existence of tax wedges (dead weight loss) insure that the money collected for the government jobs is less than the money lost from private employers. So if the government tries to pay for their new jobs, net job loss results. This is why economic stimulus packages are funded by long term debt.

Long term steroid use carries with it serious physical consequences, but any short term reduction in steroid use will lead to a period of time with depressed hormone production until the body retools to restart hormone production. At least most athletes have an off season.

Once the economic actors get used to government job creation replacing private sector job creation, they become dependent upon the government stimulus. Here is where economic actors get caught in the same catch 22 as do doping athletes. Increased long term borrowing brings on slower long term economic growth, but to withdraw economic stimulus in the short term will cause employment to fall until the self-correcting mechanisms of the economy restart private job creation.

The moral of the story: Sammy Sosa entertained some people in the short run, but will never get into the MLB Hall of Fame.

Prediction: Posterity won’t look kindly on “government job creators”