Oh, goody! The "dismal science".
A deficit consists of spending more than you take in.
"Neither
a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And
borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
This above all: to thine ownself be true,
And
it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man."
The
Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark Act I Scene III
by William Shakespeare
The
first line is most often quoted.
The last line explains Trump's sterling character.
Since
William Shakespeare is responsible for about ninety percent of the idioms in the
English language, I'd go with it.
We are borrowing from our children and grandchildren.
That is wrong.
Currently
the Federal debt consumes less than ten percent in interest payments.
(Obviously,
we are not paying anything back and still borrowing more.)
At the current rates
of borrowing and accrual, the interest bill will consume fifty percent of the budget
within the lifetime of the current generation.
Why is it that fiscally "conservative" Republicans who want to rein
in spending always swell the deficit?
And villains, such as Bill Clinton, were
able to reduce the deficit and were on track to reduce the National Debt?
Obama
inherited a destroyed economy and reinvgorated it with the longest growth period
in history.
He initially boosted the deficit by bailing out stupid, bloated corprations
"too big to fail".
But the growing recovery he created, began to stabilize
and would reverse the accumulating debt.
How to control the deficit?
Reform the tax code so less money slips away
to Switzerland and the Caymans.
Steer money to constructive investment instead
of CEO bonuses and stock buybacks.
When a CEO buys a yacht, that's dead inventory.
When
a milling machine is bought, goods are produced, workers employed and the profit
can buy the next milling machine.
Doesn't
building yachts employ workers? Not many built in America and there are no future
revenues from it.
It is a dead end for capital.
(This
one's for sale for $47 million. Enough to run "meals on wheels" awhile.)
Sometimes Federal expediture can yield a plus in revenue return to the government.
Let's
introduce an arcane concept from Economics 101.
It is called the "Velocity
of Money".
It may have a sexier name now, but that was what it was called
fifty years ago when this author studied.
And this explanation is why investment
in infrastructure yields such positive benefits.
Imagine the government builds
a bridge (particularly with American steel).
The
bridge builder buys steel, concrete, rivets etc. They pay workers.
The steel company
buys iron ore, coke, furnaces, pays workers.
The workers on the bridge pay their
mechanic, buy groceries, houses, cars etc.
The workers at the steel company pay
their mechanic, buy groceries, houses, cars etc.
The iron ore company mines the
ore, pays their workers, buys fuel for their machines.
This continues down an
ever larger pyramid.
The "velocity of money" refers to how many times
per year the same dollar changes hands.
From the government, to the bridge builder,
to the steel maker, to the iron ore mine, etc.
Characteristically, the "velocity
of money" is about six or seven in a given year.
(Remember this author's
classes were fifty years ago.)
Note: the Federal Reserve calculates the velocity
of money by a more arcane standard. The say it is about 2.
This is counter-intuitive.
If
you receive $1000 January 1st, you don't spend $500 July 1st and the other $500 December
31st.
You go out January 2nd and pay all your bills. The car mechanic you just
paid goes out and pays all his bills.
The pharmacist where the car mechanic gets
his meds pays their pill supplier. They pay their pill-making employees, etc.
The
largest lags are 30 days long when bills are put on "net 30".
Maybe
pills will set on a shelf for longer than 30 days, but a back-of-envelope velocity
of money
assumes money changes hands every couple months- not twice a year.
Which
world do you live in? Try paying your mechanic a year later...
That is a more
street-savvy view of "velocity of money".
And in that case, a value
of five or six fits with the average consumer's reality.
The Federal Government
collects 3.7 trillion dollars in taxes per year.
The Gross Domestic Product is
18 trillion dollars per year.
Taxes are 20.55 percent of income.
If the actual
velocity is 5, the government just broke even on their investment (5 x 20.55% = 102.75%).
And
therein lies the rub.
Large amounts of government expenditure go for large dead
whales that lie on the beach.
For example: hideously expensive airplanes which
don't perform.
(If
they spent it directly on Vets, it'd go straight into the economy!)
So when expenditures
languish over periods of years, velocity of money stalls.
Which is why infrastructure
spending is such a good idea. It's faster and local.
It also yields immediate,
long-lasting benefits for those who footed the bill- the taxpayer.
Corporations
are people, but don't pay taxes. Go figure.
Another part of the problem; when foreign manufactured goods are bought, the
money is no longer in the equation.
If you buy a Japanese Honda the money goes
to Japan and buys Japanese groceries.
In you buy a Honda manufactured here, the
money buys American groceries.
Something else to think about.
Going out of
the country, that money just didn't leave your hands, it left the hands of five or
six people down the food chain.
Summing it up:
Deficits are not necessarily bad.
Accumulating deficits
are bad.
Spending on dead whales is bad.
Spending on infrastructure is good
and cost effective.
Fix a road today and no need to fix the car's suspension tomorrow.
Immediately cost effective and the road's still there.