Democrats should start worrying about the level of debt and the increasing deficit. I previously discussed this issue when President Obama held the White House, when Marshall Auerback, via the Nation, wrote:

“Delivering on big progressive ideas like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal will never happen until Democrats get over their fear of red ink.”

While that article was a long and winding mess of convoluted ideas, the following excerpt was vital.

“In an environment increasingly characterized by slowing global economic growth, businesses are understandably hesitant to invest in a way that creates high-quality, high-paying jobs for the bulk of the domestic workforce. The much-vaunted Trump corporate ‘tax reform’ may have been sold to the American public on that basis, but corporations have largely used their tax cut bonanza to engage in share buybacks, which fatten executive compensation but have done nothing for the rest of us. At the same time, private households still face constraints on their consumption because of stagnant wages, rising health care costs, declining job security, poorer employment benefits, and rising debt levels.

Instead of solving these problems, the reliance on extraordinary monetary policy from the Federal Reserve via programs such as quantitative easing has exacerbated them. In contrast to properly targeted fiscal spending, the Federal Reserve’s misguided monetary policies have fueled additional financial speculation and asset inflation in stock markets and real estate, which has made housing even less affordable for the average American.”

While there is truth in that statement, and it is the same issue I have railed against previously in this blog, Mr. Auerback’s solution was seemingly simple.

“Democrats should embrace the ‘extremist’ spirit of Goldwater and eschew fiscal timidity (which, in any case, is based on faulty economics). After all, Republicans do it when it suits their legislative agenda. Likewise, Democrats should go big with deficits—as long as they are used for the transformative programs that progressives have long talked about and now have the chance to deliver.”

As I noted then, such a solution was essentially the adoption of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), which, as discussed previously, is the assumption debt and deficits “don’t matter” as long as there is no inflation.

“Modern Monetary Theory is a macroeconomic theory that contends that a country that operates with a sovereign currency has a degree of freedom in their fiscal and monetary policy, which means government spending is never revenue constrained, but rather only limited by inflation.” – Kevin Muir

However, fast forward to the present, we tried MMT; the Democrats went big with debts and deficits and funded social programs, and the result was a massive spike in inflation and no actual increase in broad economic prosperity.

So, what went wrong?

The Non-Solution

The problem with most Democratic spending ideas on social programs and welfare, like free healthcare or college, is the lack of a crucial ingredient. That ingredient is a “return on investment.” Dr. Woody Brock previously addressed this point in his book “American Gridlock;”

“Country A spends $4 Trillion with receipts of $3 Trillion. This leaves Country A with a $1 Trillion deficit. In order to make up the difference between the spending and the income, the Treasury must issue $1 Trillion in new debt. That new debt is used to cover the excess expenditures but generates no income leaving a future hole that must be filled.

Country B spends $4 Trillion and receives $3 Trillion income. However, the $1 Trillion of excess, which was financed by debt, was invested into projects, infrastructure, that produced a positive rate of return. There is no deficit as the rate of return on the investment funds the “deficit” over time.“

Let me be clear. There is no disagreement about the need for government spending. The debate is about the abuse and waste of it.

John Maynard Keynes’ was correct in his theory that for government “deficit” spending to be effective, the “payback” from investments made through debt must yield a higher rate of return than the debt used to fund it.

Currently, the U.S. is “Country A.” 

The problem with the more socialistic programs that Democrats continue to pursue with deficit spending is that it exacerbates the problem. The Center On Budget & Policy Priorities data can help visualize the issue.

As of the latest annual data, through the end of Q2-2023, the Government spent $6.3 Trillion, of which $5.3 Trillion went to mandatory expenses. In other words, it currently requires 113% of every $1 of revenue to pay for social welfare and interest on the debt. Everything else must come from debt issuance.

This is why debt issuance has surged since 2008 when Congress quit using the budgeting process to allow for rampant spending.

Of course, given the massive surge in spending, revenues cannot keep up the pace, leading to a rapid increase in debt issuance and a trending deficit.

However, while Democrats keep pushing for more socialistic programs, which garners votes in election cycles, they are now faced with a problem that may be their undoing.

Debt Diverts Productive Capital

Ben Ritz for the WSJ recently penned:

“Deficits are undermining the Biden economy. In the past year, the real federal budget deficit more than doubled, from $933 billion to $2 trillion. Democrats rightly argued that spending borrowed money was a critical economic support during the Covid pandemic. But the unemployment rate the over past year has been consistently lower than any point since the 1950s.

Economists, even those on the far left who subscribe to ‘modern monetary theory,’ agree that increasing deficits in a tight labor market fuels inflation. Voters’ frustrations with inflation and the interest-rate hikes implemented to bring it under control exceed their appreciation for low unemployment, fueling disapproval of President Biden’s economic record. Deficit reduction is more important than it has been at any other time in the 21st century.”

The problem with the analysis is that while the “unemployment rate” may be low, economic disparity is high. While the massive surge in pandemic-era spending boosted economic inflation, it also created an enormous rise in inflation, unsurprisingly. That inflation surge spurred the Fed to aggressively hike rates on the short end of the yield curve, while inflation and economic growth pushed long-term rates higher.

Subsequently, higher inflation and higher borrowing costs priced out wage increases with substantially higher living costs. Unsurprisingly, the net worth of the bottom 90% of Americans has failed to improve.

The problem for the Democrats is that continuing to push socialistic programs only makes the situation worse. Yes, more “free money” to individuals sounds excellent in theory, but prices ultimately increase more. The problem is exacerbated as non-productive debt erodes economic growth, and more debt diverts productive capital into interest payments.

“Annual interest payments are already at their highest level as a percentage of gross domestic product since the 1990s. By 2028 the government is projected to spend more than $1 trillion on interest payments each year—more than it spends on Medicaid or national defense. Worse, the U.S. may be entering a vicious circle whereby higher deficits increase debt and fuel inflation, which the Federal Reserve must combat by raising interest rates, causing debt-service costs to balloon further.” – Ben Ritz

While the Democrats continue to push for more social spending programs, we have potentially reached the point where that may be no longer feasible. I agree with Ben’s view that it may be time for both Democrats and Republicans to start taking steps to restore fiscal responsibility in Washington.

The average American family is no longer supportive of new progressive policies when they believe we can’t even pay for the promises already made.

Of course, if the economy slips into a recession before the 2024 election, we could see a political rout in Washington, D.C.

The Chicago Fed National Activity Index (CFNAI) is arguably one of the most important and overlooked economic indicators. Each month, economists, the media, and investors pour over various mainstream economic indicators, from GDP to employment and inflation, to determine what markets will likely do next.

While economic numbers like GDP or the monthly non-farm payroll report typically garner the headlines, the most crucial statistic, in my opinion, is the CFNAI. Investors and the press mostly ignore it, but the CFNAI is a composite index of 85 sub-components, giving a broad overview of overall economic activity in the U.S.

Since the beginning of this year, the markets ran up sharply over into July as the Federal Reserve again intervened in the markets to bail out regional banks. Then, even as the market pulled back this summer, economic growth accelerated in the 3rd quarter, according to the headlines, which should translate into a resurgence of corporate earnings. However, if recent CFNAI readings are any indication, investors may want to alter their growth assumptions heading into next year.

While most economic data points are backward-looking statistics, like GDP, the CFNAI is a forward-looking metric that indicates how the economy will likely look in the coming months.

Notably, that data does not support the recent economic report from the Bureau Of Economic Analysis (BEA), which showed the economy expanded by 4.9% in Q3.

So, what is the CFNAI telling us that is different than the BEA economic report?

Breaking Down The “Most Important Number”

Understanding the message the index is designed to deliver is critical. From the Chicago Fed website:

“The Chicago Fed National Activity Index (CFNAI) is a monthly index designed to gauge overall economic activity and related inflationary pressure. A zero value for the index indicates that the national economy is expanding at its historical trend rate of growth; negative values indicate below-average growth; and positive values indicate above-average growth.“

The overall index is broken down into four major sub-categories, which cover:

• Production & Income
• Employment, Unemployment & Hours
• Personal Consumption & Housing
• Sales, Orders & Inventories

To better grasp these four critical sub-components and their predictive capability, I have constructed a 4-panel chart. I have compared the CFNAI sub-components to the four most common economic reports of Industrial Production, Employment, Housing Starts, and Personal Consumption Expenditures. To provide a more comparative base to the construction of the CFNAI, I used an annual percentage change for these four components.

The correlation between the CFNAI sub-components and the underlying major economic reports is high. This is why, even though this indicator gets very little attention, it represents the broader economy. The CFNAI is not confirming the mainstream view of an “economic resurgence” that will drive earnings growth into next year.

The CFNAI is also essential to our RIA Economic Output Composite Index (EOCI). The EOCI is an even broader composition of data points, including Federal Reserve regional activity indices, the Chicago PMI, ISM, the National Federation of Independent Business Surveys, and the Leading Economic Index. The EOCI further confirms that “hopes” of an immediate rebound in economic activity are unlikely. To wit:

“As discussed in “Signs, Signs, Everywhere Signs,” numerous measures suggest a recession is forthcoming. However, that recession has yet to reveal itself. Such has led to a fierce debate between the bulls and the bears. The bears contend that a recession is still coming, while the bulls are betting more heavily on a “no landing” scenario or, instead, avoiding a recession. Even the Federal Reserve is no longer expecting a recession.

But how is a “no recession” outcome possible amid the most aggressive rate hiking campaign in history, deeply inverted yield curves, and other measures warning of its inevitability?“

There are a couple of essential points to note in this very long-term chart.

1. Economic contractions tend to reverse fairly frequently from high peaks, and those contractions tend to revert towards the 30-reading on the chart. Recessions are always present with sustained readings below the 30 level.
2. The financial market is generally correct in price as weaker economic data weighs on market outlooks. 

Currently, the EOCI index suggests more contraction will come in the coming months, which will likely weigh on asset prices as earnings estimates and outlooks are ratcheted down heading into 2024.

It’s In The Diffusion

The Chicago Fed also provides a breakdown of the change in the underlying 85 components in a “diffusion” index. As opposed to just the index itself, the “diffusion” of the components gives us a better understanding of the broader changes inside the index itself.

There are two points of consideration:

1. When the diffusion index dips below zero, it coincides with weak economic growth and outright recessions. 
2. The S&P 500 has a history of corrections and outright bear markets, corresponding with negative readings in the diffusion index.

The second point should not be surprising, as the stock market reflects economic growth. Both the EOCI index above and the CFNAI below correlate to the annual rate of change in the S&P 500. Again, the correlation should not be surprising. (The monthly CFNAI data is very volatile, so we use a 6-month average to smooth the data.)

How good of a correlation is it? The r-squared is 50% between the annual rate of change for the S&P 500 and the 6-month average of the CFNAI index. More importantly, the CFNAI suggests the S&P 500 should be trading lower to correspond with the economic data. Throughout its history, the CFNAI tends to be right more often than market players.

Investors should also be concerned about the current level of consumer confidence readings.

Not So Confident

The chart below is our consumer confidence composite index. It combines the University of Michigan and the Conference Board’s sentiment readings into one index. The shaded areas are when the composite index exceeds 100, corresponding with rising asset markets.

While that index has declined over the last 18 months, it remains elevated above previous recessionary levels, suggesting the economy continues to muddle along. The issue is the divergence between “consumer” confidence and “CEO’s.” The question is, who should we pay attention to?

“Is it the consumer cranking out work hours, raising a family, and trying to make ends meet? Or the CEO of a company that has the best view of the economic landscape. Sales, prices, managing inventory, dealing with collections, paying bills, tells them what they need to know about the actual economy?”

CEO confidence leads consumer confidence by a wide margin. Such lures bullish investors, and the media, into believing that CEO’s don’t know what they are doing. Unfortunately, consumer confidence tends to crash as it catches up with what CEO’s were already telling them.

What were CEO’s telling consumers that crushed their confidence?

“I’m sorry, we think you are great, but I have to let you go.” 

Despite the recent uptick in CEO confidence since October, which corresponded with strong equity market performance, confidence is hovering around pre-recessionary levels. Notably, CEO confidence is not uncommon to tick higher just before the recession is announced.

The CFNAI also tells the same story: significant consumer confidence divergences eventually “catch down” to the underlying index.

This chart suggests that we will begin seeing weaker employment numbers and rising layoffs in the months ahead if history guides the future.

Conclusion

While the media hopes for a “no recession” scenario, the data tells us an important story.

Notably, the historical data of the CFNAI and its relationship to the stock market have included all Federal Reserve activity.

The CFNAI and EOCI incorporate the impact of monetary policy on the economy in both past and leading indicators. Such is why investors should hedge risk to some degree in portfolios, as the data still suggests weaker than anticipated economic growth. The current trend of the various economic data points on a broad scale is not showing indications of recovery but of a longer-than-expected recession and recovery. 

Economically speaking, such weak levels of economic growth do not support more robust employment or higher wages. Instead, we should expect that 2024 could be a year where corporate earnings and profits disappoint investors as economic weakness continues.

In September 2017, when the Trump Administration began promoting the idea of tax cut legislation, I wrote a series of articles discussing the fallacy that tax cuts would lead to higher tax collections, and a reduction in the deficit. To wit:

“Given today’s record-high levels of debt, the country cannot afford a deficit-financed tax cut. Tax reform that adds to the debt is likely to slow, rather than improve, long-term economic growth.

The problem with the claims that tax cuts reduce the deficit is that there is NO evidence to support the claim. The increases in deficit spending to supplant weaker economic growth has been apparent with larger deficits leading to further weakness in economic growth. In fact, ever since Reagan first lowered taxes in the ’80’s both GDP growth and the deficit have only headed in one direction – higher.”

That was the deficit in September 2017.

Here it is today.

As opposed to all the promises made, economic growth failed to get stronger. Furthermore, federal revenues as a percentage of GDP declined to levels that have historically coincided with recessions.

Why Does This Matter?

President Trump just proposed his latest $4.8 Trillion budget, and not surprisingly, suggests the deficit will decrease over the next 10-years.

Such is a complete fantasy and was derived from mathematical gimmickry to delude voters to the contrary. As Jim Tankersley recently noted:

The White House makes the case that this is affordable and that the deficit will start to fall, dropping below $1 trillion in the 2021 fiscal year, and that the budget will be balanced by 2035. That projection relies on rosy assumptions about growth and the accumulation of new federal debt — both areas where the administration’s past predictions have proved to be overconfident.

The new budget forecasts a growth rate for the United States economy of 2.8 percent this year — or, by the metric the administration prefers to cite, a 3.1 percent rate. That is more than a half percentage point higher than forecasters at the Federal Reserve and the Congressional Budget Office predict.

It then predicts growth above 3 percent annually for the next several years if the administration’s economic policies are enacted. The Fed, the budget office and others all see growth falling below 2 percent annually in that time. By 2030, the administration predicts the economy will be more than 15 percent larger than forecasters at the budget office do.

Past administrations have also dressed up their budget forecasts with economic projections that proved far too good to be true. In its fiscal year 2011 budget, for example, the Obama administration predicted several years of growth topping 4 percent in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis — a number it never came close to reaching even once.

Trump’s budget expectations also contradict the Congressional Budget Office’s latest deficit warning:

“CBO estimates a 2020 deficit of $1.0 trillion, or 4.6 percent of GDP. The projected gap between spending and revenues increases to 5.4 percent of GDP in 2030. Federal debt held by the public is projected to rise over the ­coming decade, from 81 percent of GDP in 2020 to 98 percent of GDP in 2030. It continues to grow ­thereafter in CBO’s projections, reaching 180 percent of GDP in 2050, well above the highest level ever recorded in the United States.”

“With unprecedented trillion-dollar deficits projected as far as the eye can see, this country needs a serious budget. Unfortunately, that cannot be said of the one the President just submitted to Congress, which is filled with non-starters and make-believe economics.” – Maya Macguineas

Debt Slows Economic Growth

There is a long-standing addiction in Washington to debt. Every year, we continue to pile on more debt with the expectation that economic growth will soon follow.

However, excessive borrowing by companies, households or governments lies at the root of almost every economic crisis of the past four decades, from Mexico to Japan, and from East Asia to Russia, Venezuela, and Argentina. But it’s not just countries, but companies as well. You don’t have to look too far back to see companies like Enron, GM, Bear Stearns, Lehman, and a litany of others brought down by surging debt levels and simple “greed.” Households, too, have seen their fair share of debt burden related disaster from mortgages to credit cards to massive losses of personal wealth.

It would seem that after nearly 40-years, some lessons would have been learned.

Such reckless abandon by politicians is simply due to a lack of “experience” with the consequences of debt.

In 2008, Margaret Atwood discussed this point in a Wall Street Journal article:

“Without memory, there is no debt. Put another way: Without story, there is no debt.

A story is a string of actions occurring over time — one damn thing after another, as we glibly say in creative writing classes — and debt happens as a result of actions occurring over time. Therefore, any debt involves a plot line: how you got into debt, what you did, said and thought while you were in there, and then — depending on whether the ending is to be happy or sad — how you got out of debt, or else how you got further and further into it until you became overwhelmed by it, and sank from view.”

The problem today is there is no “story” about the consequences of debt in the U.S. While there is a litany of other countries which have had their own “debt disaster” story, those issues have been dismissed under the excuse of “yes, but they aren’t the U.S.”

But this lack of a “story,” is what has led us to the very doorstep of “Modern Monetary Theory,” or “MMT.” As Michael Lebowitz previously explained:

“MMT theory essentially believes the government spending can be funded by printing money. Currently, government spending is funded by debt, and not the Fed’s printing press. MMT disciples tell us that when the shackles of debt and deficits are removed, government spending can promote economic growth, full employment and public handouts galore.

Free healthcare and higher education, jobs for everyone, living wages and all sorts of other promises are just a few of the benefits that MMT can provide. At least, that is how the theory is being sold.”

What’s not to love?

Oh yes, it’s that deficit thing.

Deficits Are Not Self-Financing

The premise of MMT is that government “deficit” spending is not a problem because the spending into “productive investments” pay for themselves over time.

But therein lies the problem – what exactly constitutes “productive investments?”

For government “deficit” spending to be effective, the “payback” from investments made must yield a higher rate of return than the interest rate on the debt used to fund it. 

Examples of such investments range from the Hoover Dam to the Tennessee River Valley Authority. Importantly, “infrastructure spending projects,” must have a long-term revenue stream tied to time. Building roads and bridges to “nowhere,” may create short-term jobs, but once the construction is complete, the economic benefit turns negative.

The problem for MMT is its focus on spending is NOT productive investments but rather social welfare which has a negative rate of return. 

Of course, the Government has been running a “Quasi-MMT” program since 1980.

According to the Center On Budget & Policy Priorities, roughly 75% of every current tax dollar goes to non-productive spending. (The same programs the Democrats are proposing.)

To make this clearer, in 2019, the Federal Government spent $4.8 Trillion, which was equivalent to 22% of the nation’s entire nominal GDP. Of that total spending, ONLY $3.6 Trillion was financed by Federal revenues, and $1.1 trillion was financed through debt.

In other words, if 75% of all expenditures go to social welfare and interest on the debt, those payments required $3.6 Trillion, or roughly 99% of the total revenue coming in. 

There is also clear evidence that increasing debts and deficits DO NOT lead to either stronger economic growth or increasing productivity. As Michael Lebowitz previously showed:

“Since 1980, the long term average growth rate of productivity has stagnated in a range of 0 to 2% annually, a sharp decline from the 30 years following WWII when productivity growth averaged 4 to 6%. While there is no exact measure of productivity, total factor productivity (TFP) is considered one of the best measures. Data for TFP can found here.

The graph below plots a simple index we created based on total factor productivity (TFP) versus the ten-year average growth rate of TFP. The TFP index line is separated into green and red segments to highlight the change in the trend of productivity growth rate that occurred in the early 1970’s. The green dotted line extrapolates the trend of the pre-1972 era forward.”

“The plot of the 10-year average productivity growth (black line) against the ratio of total U.S. credit outstanding to GDP (green line) is telling.”

“This reinforces the message from the other debt-related graphs – over the last 30-years the economy has relied more upon debt growth and less on productivity to generate economic activity.

The larger the balance of debt has become, the more economically destructive it is by diverting an ever-growing amount of dollars away from productive investments to service payments.

Since 2008, the economy has been growing well below its long-term exponential trend. Such has been a consistent source of frustration for both Obama, Trump, and the Fed, who keep expecting higher rates of economic only to be disappointed.

The relevance of debt growth versus economic growth is all too evident. When debt issuance exploded under the Obama administration, and accelerated under President Trump, it has taken an ever-increasing amount of debt to generate $1 of economic growth.

Another way to view the impact of debt on the economy is to look at what “debt-free” economic growth would be. In other words, without debt, there has been no organic economic growth.

For the 30-years, from 1952 to 1982, the economic surplus fostered a rising economic growth rate, which averaged roughly 8% during that period. Today, with the economy expected to grow at just 2% over the long-term, the economic deficit has never been higher. If you subtract the debt, there has not been any organic economic growth since 1990. 

What is indisputable is that running ongoing budget deficits that fund unproductive growth is not economically sustainable long-term.

The End Game Cometh

Over the last 40-years, the U.S. economy has engaged in increasing levels of deficit spending without the results promised by MMT.

There is also a cost to MMT we have yet to hear about from its proponents.

The value of the dollar, like any commodity, rises and falls as the supply of dollars change. If the government suddenly doubled the money supply, one dollar would still be worth one dollar but it would only buy half of what it would have bought prior to their action.

This is the flaw MMT supporters do not address.

MMT is not a free lunch.

MMT is paid for by reducing the value of the dollar and ergo your purchasing power. MMT is a hidden tax paid by everyone holding dollars. The problem, as Michael Lebowitz outlined in Two Percent for the One Percent, inflation tends to harm the poor and middle class while benefiting the wealthy.

This is why the wealth gap is more pervasive than ever. Currently, the Top 10% of income earners own nearly 87% of the stock market. The rest are just struggling to make ends meet.

As I stated above, the U.S. has been running MMT for the last three decades, and has resulted in social inequality, disappointment, frustration, and a rise in calls for increasing levels of socialism.

It is all just as you would expect from such a theory put into practice, and history is replete with countries that have attempted the same. Currently, the limits of profligate spending in Washington has not been reached, and the end of this particular debt story is yet to be written.

But, it eventually will be.

In the past, we discussed how “Capitalism” was distorted by Wall Street. We’ve also reviewed some of the “myths” of capitalism, which are used to garner “votes” by politicians but are not really true. Most importantly, we discussed the fallacy that “more Government” is the answer in creating equality as it impairs economic opportunity.

I want to conclude this series with a discussion on the fallacy of socialism and equality, and provide a some thoughts on how you can capitalize on capitalism.

Envy was once considered to be one of the seven deadly sins before it became one of the most admired virtues under its new name, “social justice."

— Thomas Sowell (@ThomasSowell) October 17, 2019

Socialism Requires Money

The “entire premise” of the socialist agendas assumes money is unlimited. Since there is only a finite amount of money created through taxation of citizens each year the remainder must come from the issuance of debt.

Therefore, to promote an agenda which requires unlimited capital commitments to fulfill, the basic premise has to be “debt doesn’t matter.” 

Enter “Modern Monetary Theory” or MMT.

Kevin Muir penned “Everything You Wanted To Know About MMT” which delves into what MMT proposes to be. To wit:

“Modern Monetary Theory is a macroeconomic theory that contends that a country that operates with a sovereign currency has a degree of freedom in their fiscal and monetary policy which means government spending is never revenue constrained, but rather only limited by inflation.”

In other words, debts and deficits do not matter as long as the Government can print the money it needs, to pay for what it wants to pay for.

“Deficits are self-financing, deficits push rates down, deficits raise private savings.” – Stephanie Kelton

It is the proverbial “you can have your cake and eat it too” theory. It just hasn’t exactly worked out that way.

Deficits Are Not Self-Financing

The premise of MMT is that government “deficit” spending is not a problem because the spending into “productive investments” pay for themselves over time.

But therein lies the problem – what exactly constitutes “productive investments?”

For that answer, we can turn to Dr. Woody Brock, an economist who holds 5-degrees in math and economics and is the author of “American Gridlock” for the answer.

“The word ‘deficit’ has no real meaning. 

‘Country A spends $4 Trillion with receipts of $3 Trillion. This leaves Country A with a $1 Trillion deficit. In order to make up the difference between the spending and the income, the Treasury must issue $1 Trillion in new debt. That new debt is used to cover the excess expenditures, but generates no income leaving a future hole that must be filled.

Country B spends $4 Trillion and receives $3 Trillion income. However, the $1 Trillion of excess, which was financed by debt, was invested into projects, infrastructure, that produced a positive rate of return. There is no deficit as the rate of return on the investment funds the ‘deficit’ over time.’

There is no disagreement about the need for government spending. The disagreement is with the abuse, and waste, of it.

For government “deficit” spending to be effective, the “payback” from investments made through debt must yield a higher rate of return than the interest rate on the debt used to fund it.

The problem, for MMT and as noted by Dr. Brock, is that government spending has shifted away from productive investments, like the Hoover Dam, which creates jobs (infrastructure and development) to primarily social welfare, defense, and debt service which has negative rates of return.

In other words, the U.S. is “Country A.” 

However, there is clear evidence that increasing debts and deficits DO NOT lead to either stronger economic growth or increasing productivity. As Michael Lebowitz recently showed:

“Since 1980, the long term average growth rate of productivity has stagnated in a range of 0 to 2% annually, a sharp decline from the 30 years following WWII when productivity growth averaged 4 to 6%. While there is no exact measure of productivity, total factor productivity (TFP) is considered one of the best measures. Data for TFP can found here.”

“The graph below plots 10-year average productivity growth (black line) against the ratio of total U.S. credit outstanding to GDP (green line).”

“This reinforces the message from the other debt related graphs – over the last 30 years the economy has relied more upon debt growth and less on productivity to generate economic activity.”

As noted above, since the bulk of the debt issued by the U.S. has been unproductively squandered on increases in social welfare programs and debt service, there is a negative return on investment. Therefore, the larger the balance of debt becomes, the more economically destructive it is by diverting an ever-growing amount of dollars away from productive investments to service payments.

Another way to view the impact of debt on the economy is to look at what “debt-free” economic growth would be. In other words, without debt, there has been no organic economic growth.

For the 30-years from 1952 to 1982, the economic surplus fostered a rising economic growth rate, which averaged roughly 8% during that period. Today, with the economy expected to grow at just 2% over the long-term, the economic deficit has never been greater, and continues to grow.

MMT is not a free lunch. MMT is paid for by reducing the value of the dollar, and is a hidden tax by reducing the purchasing power of everyone holding dollars. The problem is that inflation tends to harm the poor and middle class, but benefits the wealthy.

While MMT promises “free college,” “healthcare for all,” “free childcare,” and “jobs for all” with no consequences, it will deliver inflation, generate further wealth/income inequality, and greater levels of social instability and populism.

How do we know this? Because it is the same outcome seen in every other country that endeavored in programs of unbridled debts and deficits.

MMT sounds great at the conversational level, but so does “communism” and “socialism.”

In practice, the outcomes have been vastly different than the theory.

Why Wealth Inequality Is A Good Thing

Just recently, Aaron Back accidentally made the case for why we should foster “capitalism” over “socialism.” 

Fixed it:

"The introduction of capitalist reforms to Communist China has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, but it had a drawback: rising income inequality." https://t.co/tsAHyUdeEl

— Aaron Back (@AaronBack) October 1, 2019

What Aaron exposed in his rush to jump on the “inequality bandwagon” was what capitalism provided. Let’s break down his statement:

1. Introduction of capitalism lifts millions out of poverty. (This is a good thing)
2. Yes, inequality was created as those that took advantage of capitalism prospered versus those that didn’t. (How capitalism works)
3. If capitalism lifted millions out of poverty, which suggests everyone was poor under communism. 

Point 3 is the most important.

“Capitalism gets its power—and has created the greatest increase in social welfare in history—from embracing human ingenuity and the positive forces of innovation, open markets and competition. Perhaps the greatest strength of free markets is their ability to nimbly adjust to new ideas and situations and find the most efficient system. Markets are always looking to do things better. We can apply that same logic to capitalism itself to improve capitalism further so that it can provide even greater social welfare.” – Daniel LaCalle

Let me clarify something for you.

The ‘American Dream’ isn’t going into debt to buy a home. The ‘American Dream’ is the ability for ANY person, regardless of race, religion, or means, to achieve success, and in many cases great success, through hard work, dedication, determination, and sacrifice.

Capitalism Is The Worst, Except For All The Rest

One thing is for certain. Life isn’t fair.

“The rich have everything, and all I have is a mountain of student debt and a crappy job.”

Capitalism isn’t perfect as Howard Marks recently noted:

“Capitalism is an imperfect economic system, because differential performance in the pursuit of economic success – as well as luck – results in there being (a) some people who are less successful as well as some who are more and (b) a few who are glaringly successful.

I’m 100% convinced that the capitalist system has produced the most aggregate gains for our society, exceptional overall progress, and a better life for most. 

In the same way, I’m convinced that capitalism is the worst economic system . . . except for all the rest.”

Capitalism is the only system that will provide you the ability to achieve unbridled success.

Yes, the Government can pay for anything you want. The problem is that it requires those who are succeeding to pay for it.

Think about it.

Do you want to work hard, sacrifice, and take on an exceeding amount of risk to achieve success only to pay for those who don’t?

This is why socialism always fails.

“The greater good can only be achieved by making the good greater.” – Daniel LaCalle