Sense on Cents

Will the wizards in Washington be able to recreate the Goldilocks economy, in which we can generate moderate growth with limited inflation and near full employment? Well, that economic dream is still off in the distance, but the Goldilocks analogy is appropriate. How’s that? Much like the cherished tale, the wizards are faced with three choices in virtually every situation: too much, too little, just right.

Fiscal policy
 – too much spending and/or improperly targeted spending will drive interest rates higher via massive deficits and potential hyperinflation.

 – too little spending and/or improperly targeted will not properly stimulate the economy and may lead to a bout of deflation.

 – just the right amount of spending and properly targeted will support the economy and stabilize prices.

Monetary Policy
 – too much gas on this fire will massively grow the money supply and lead to hyperinflation.

 – not enough gas or a slow delivery (the concern in Europe) will not stop the economy from sliding into a deeper recession.

 – just right will lead to support for the economy. However, our wizards must be prescient and know exactly when to turn the gas line down and then off. If this procedure is not executed with precision, our house may go up in the flames of hyperinflation. Many wise and elderly wizards, including none other than Paul Volcker, have this concern.

Regulatory  
 – overly restrictive regulations will inhibit an entrepreneurial spirit and drive business overseas.

 – ineffective, inappropriate, or insufficient regulations will lead to further moral hazards and an economic foundation akin to a pile of sand. Dare I say, our house is suffering from this problem currently.

 – just right would compel new regulators with real teeth to redraft the rules by which we play. Paul Krugman wrote “Stressing The Positive” in yesterday’s New York Time and addressed this topic. Krugman offers:

. . . what worries me most about the way policy is going isn’t any of these things. It’s my sense that the prospects for fundamental financial reform are fading.

Does anyone remember the case of H. Rodgin Cohen, a prominent New York lawyer whom The Times has described as a “Wall Street éminence grise”? He briefly made the news in March when he reportedly withdrew his name after being considered a top pick for deputy Treasury secretary.

Well, earlier this week, Mr. Cohen told an audience that the future of Wall Street won’t be very different from its recent past, declaring, “I am far from convinced there was something inherently wrong with the system.” Hey, that little thing about causing the worst global slump since the Great Depression? Never mind.

Those are frightening words. They suggest that while the Federal Reserve and the Obama administration continue to insist that they’re committed to tighter financial regulation and greater oversight, Wall Street insiders are taking the mildness of bank policy so far as a sign that they’ll soon be able to go back to playing the same games as before.

Uncle Sam’s intervention
 – too much involvement means private enterprise will either not play in our markets or charge a higher price in the form of higher interest rates (this is VERY likely to happen given the disregard for property rights and the validity of contracts).

 – too little and the economy may take another leg down in the form of a triple dip.

 – just right . . . how do we compel Uncle Sam to be a benevolent Old Man and not encroach on the principles of capitalism, free markets, and private enterprise as he tries to push forward with a massive social agenda and enormous spending plans?

The trail on which we are proceeding will be LONG. Will we be able to find that warm home in the woods? Do we have the fortitude and courage to sacrifice as need be or do we have leaders who are blinded by ambition and agendas which will cause us to lose our way?

Bring extra supplies.   

LD