U.S. GDP grows 2% in 3rd quarter--WOW!

From the L.A. Times:

Reporting from Washington —

The U.S. economy continued to plod along at a sluggish pace in the third quarter, not enough to generate momentum or bring down the nation's high jobless rate.

The nation's gross domestic product, or the value of all goods and services produced inside U.S. borders, grew at an annualized rate of 2% in the July-to-September quarter, the Commerce Department said Friday.

That was a tad higher than the 1.7% GDP growth in the second quarter, but overall still paints a picture of a lackluster economy that expanded at a 3.25% annual rate in the second half of last year coming out of the recession, only to see a slowing since spring...

Uncertainties about the expiring Bush administration's tax cuts loom as a potential negative, but analysts say even that could provide a lift in the next two months as people move some of their planned spending for 2011 to this year because of the risks of higher taxes.

Wowza! The stimulus, the threat of higher taxes, and more regulation for everything that moves is really working!

Not.

The above is only one reason why Democrats are going to have their butts handed to them this coming Tuesday. Hang in there, America.

What's it gonna cost us to regulate that industry?

So the latest news that has progressives all excited is that the Obama administration is set to tap Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Progressives LOVE her. But Warren is another example of the endless cult of personality theme that runs through leftist political thought: If you just install the right person into a leadership position, the smart and caring person that says all the things you like to hear, then all will be fixed just as right as rain. BWAHAHAHA!

I don't care for Warren. Her answer to everything is "let's regulate it," while never discussing what the cost is to wanton regulating. Just because an industry is heavily regulated doesn't mean that it will be more safe, efficient, or less costly: Public Choice economists figured that out long ago.

Are we heading towards the Spanish model of employment?

Jaime Levy Moreno over at LVMI writes the following sobering thoughts on the Spanish labor market:

For the last ten years, and especially since the recent financial crisis started, Spanish unemployment has risen astronomically, reaching a record of around 20 percent. This, of course, does not count the thousands of illegal immigrants, who don't appear in the official state statistics...

The headline unemployment rate we get fed by our government is useless too. But here's the real kicker regarding employment:

...In order to explain why it is so hard for recent graduates to obtain a decent job in Spain, it is important to know that labor costs are very high for employers — a consequence of strict laws that protect workers. Four weeks' vacation a year is the mandatory minimum. An artificially high minimum wage places a floor under the supply of workers and the demand for jobs, creating a devastating imbalance. This means there is a huge demand for jobs and little desire on the part of employers to fulfill it.

Additional reasons for the lack of job offers in Spain include the excessive finiquito, the final pay a worker is entitled to under Spanish law when fired: 45 days of salary for each year worked at the company. Furthermore, taxes on employers are very high — at least a 50 percent of each worker's annual salary, which means that if someone is paid €20,000 a year, it costs their employer at least €30,000 a year to hire them. All this makes an employer very reluctant to hire an employee, which creates a high rate of unemployment and a huge number of "garbage contracts." These taxes also promote black-market activity, which either sidesteps the established rules or ignores them altogether.

The taxes on employee wages are very high as well, which brings us back to the mileurista social status. These taxes create a substitution effect: firms have become desperate for new technologies to reduce labor inputs. One recent example in Spain is McDonald's move to start substituting workers with new machines that take the order for the customer, reducing the number of workers. The goal is to leave only two sets of employees — the ones in the kitchen and ones that hand the food to you at the counter.

The lesson here is that the harder and more expensive it is made for employers to hire, the less jobs will be created. Unfortunately, we have too many in the political class that believe that having the sort of "safeguards" that Spanish firms have to deal with is acceptable and a matter of fairness. Of course, what they don't tell you that there is a cost to implementing these labor regulations---less jobs.

The problem with regulation

Can you say regulatory capture? Economists have been studying this phenomenon for decades but some people simply are not convinced that it really does happen.

No Consequences

Since it was our government working through an aggressive "affordable housing" campaign that was mainly responsible for the housing bubble and it’s subsequent collapse, and which then led to the financial storm that followed, why does anyone really believe that any legislation that comes out of Congress will address any "lack" of oversight of the financial sector? This legislation is obviously “red meat” for citizens fed the liberal narrative (Thank you, MSM!) that the entire collapse was due to "greed" and "lack of regulation." Where is the movement to remove Barney Frank and Chris Dodd from their powerful committee posts? Afterall, those two were right in the thicket of this whole national nightmare.

Why did Rothbard so love Turgot?

Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot (1727–1781) understood government regulation better than some modern day economists.

Banking deregulation reduces racial wage gap

A recent study by a group of Brown University academics found that one of the benefits of a deregulated banking industry is a reduced (but not eliminate) wage gap between blacks and whites. The theory is that when laws preventing banks from incorporating in other states (than they were already operating in) were eliminated, this eventually led to increased competition and it also created better access for entrepreneurs to start up businesses that would employ more people. The more people employed the more likely hood that racial bias would be reduced. The states with the highest racial wage gap before deregulation seemed to have benefited the most after deregulation. Big government advocates that want to punish the banking industry for the recent financial crisis would do well to look over this study carefully before over-reacting with regulatory schemes.

More on the financial crisis and the big government cronies that caused it

From Charles Krauthammer:

The mob is agitated, but hardly blameless. While the punch bowl -- Alan Greenspan's extremely low post-9/11 interest rates -- was being held out, few complained about cheap loans and doubling home values. Now all of the sudden everything is the fault of Wall Street malfeasance.

I have little doubt that some, if not many, cases of malfeasance will emerge. But what we conveniently neglect is the fact that much of this crisis was brought upon us by the good intentions of good people.

For decades, starting with Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, there has been bipartisan agreement to use government power to expand homeownership to people who had been shut out for economic reasons or, sometimes, because of racial and ethnic discrimination. What could be a more worthy cause? But it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- who in turn pressured banks and other lenders -- to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity.
Read More

How A Clinton-Era Rule Rewrite Made Subprime Crisis Inevitable

I found this great article on the housing crash and the root of its cause:

One of the most frequently asked questions about the subprime market meltdown and housing crisis is: How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market?

The answer is: President Clinton wanted it that way. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even into the early 1990s, weren't the juggernauts they'd later be. While President Carter in 1977 signed the Community Reinvestment Act, which pushed Fannie and Freddie to aggressively lend to minority communities, it was Clinton who supercharged the process.

After entering office in 1993, he extensively rewrote Fannie's and Freddie's rules.In so doing, he turned the two quasi-private, mortgage-funding firms into a semi-nationalized monopoly that dispensed cash to markets, made loans to large Democratic voting blocs and handed favors, jobs and money to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and the Fannie-Freddie collapse.

Despite warnings of trouble at Fannie and Freddie, in 1994 Clinton unveiled his National Homeownership Strategy, which broadened the CRA in ways Congress never intended. Addressing the National Association of Realtors that year, bluntly told the group that "more Americans should own their own homes." He meant it. He saw homeownership as a way to open the door for blacks and other minorities to enter the middle class.

Though well-intended, the problem was that Congress was about to change hands, from the Democrats to the Republicans. Rather than submit legislation that the GOP-led Congress was almost sure to reject, he ordered Robert Rubin's Treasury Department to rewrite the rules in 1995. Read More

From Terry Jones at Investor Business Daily

Ron Paul is a kook, eh?

Speculators=Vampires II

Has anyone noticed that the price of gas has dropped for 24 consecutive days? I’m sure you have as there has been a drop of 15 cents over the last two weeks. Strange, Congress takes a vacation from doing squat all season and oil prices drop rather nicely. Hmm, maybe it’s just a coincidence.

But what of the conspiracy theories regarding speculators brought forth by progressives and liberal Democrats? Where are these capitalist vampires and why in the world would they let oil prices drop when there are riches to be had? Heck now is a good time to stick it to consumers since Congress is out of town. Why not ratchet the price up ever higher? Who is going to stop you, right? After all, the Enron Loophole is still in place and so are all the laws that sneaky Phil Gramm passed back in 2000 which, according to over active imaginations or political spinsters, are the mechanisms used by speculators to push crude oil prices higher and higher.

But, dear reader, as we have witnessed over the last couple of weeks, the laws of supply and demand, a strengthening dollar, and slowing economies in Europe and the U.S., have proved the conspiracy theorists wrong. What a surprise!

By the way, the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission released the results of its interim investigation into any fraud, wrongdoing, or market manipulation on 07/22/08. And the conclusions of the interim report, “found that fundamental supply and demand factors provide the best explanation for the recent crude oil price increases.” Imagine that.

However, we shouldn’t be surprised if oil prices spike up again due to an unexpected world event (or if the dollar starts to sink again) and that complaints from the Left begin again in earnest. Quite frankly, I would actually be OK if the Enron Loophole were closed. Then, when prices do go up again, we won’t have to hear all the ludicrous theories on how capitalism doesn’t work, more regulation is needed, and how speculators are all making a mint as they tool the market.

Speculators = Vampires!

Some of the theories that have been bandied about regarding oil prices and speculators have reached new levels of dogma. The little poisonous gem that I happened upon was a piece that I found (via The Liberal Journal) on the Counterpunch website titled “Gas Price Gouging,” by Mike Whitney. Here’s an excerpt:

This is not about shortages or scarcity; it's about gaming the system to fatten the bottom line. The whole scam is being executed by the same carpetbagging scoundrels who engineered the subprime fiasco; the investment bankers. The Wall Street Goliaths are using the futures market to recapitalize their flagging balance sheets after sustaining huge losses in the mortgage-backed securities boondoggle. That's the whole thing in a nutshell. Now they're on to their next swindle; distorting the futures market with gargantuan leveraged bets on food and oil.

Yes, it’s the carpet-bagging investment bankers. And don’t forget the Illuminati and the Free Masons. They have a hand in everything. Here’s another zinger:

In fact, oil is being deliberately kept off the market to keep prices high. Consider this: if supply isn't keeping up with demand then why aren't there any lines at the gas stations like there were during the '70s?

Somebody needs to tell this fellow that the reason that there was rationing of gasoline and long lines to gas stations (that would then run out of gas) was due to the implementation of price controls by President Nixon. Once wholesale prices for gasoline rose beyond what a retailer could afford to buy (they had to make some profit to pay employees, taxes, utility bills, etc), gas stations ran out of gas. This meant that there was less refined gas to go around. Somehow, Mr. Whitney believes that the lack of rationing and long lines is proof that there is plenty of gas and that prices are being manipulated. The fact that prices are allowed to rise and that it is in effect a signal of the healthy elasticity of the market - there are no long lines - is proof that the mechanism of supply and demand is working as it should. Mr. Whitney does not understand basic economics.

While the futures market is a convenient scapegoat, it is simply a price discovery mechanism. Here’s one example of how the futures market works nicely: One of the reasons that Southwest Airlines has been able to be successful in recent years, while other airlines are faltering, is due to its prescient ability to lock in lower fuel prices with the futures market: It acts as a hedge against volatility and inflation. The futures market is not without risk. If a company bets incorrectly, they could lose money. It isn’t the perfectly gamed system that Mr. Whitney and others believe it is.

Note that many commodities have spiked in price over the last couple of years. It isn’t just oil. Does that mean that corn, wheat, copper, and fertilizer are being manipulated by speculators too? Should congress make laws to meddle in the trading of those commodities as well? The rise in oil is occurring globally, not just in the U.S. Attempting to stifle speculators in U.S. financial markets will do nothing to the global price of oil.

So, what’s the answer? Why has oil jumped to its record highs? The primary answers are the weak dollar and good old supply and demand, folks. I know that this is not as sexy and as attractive as a conspiracy theory. But there it is. If the Fed ever decides to fight inflation and strengthen the dollar, commodity prices would fall like a rock. It’s as simple as that. Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute explains it best:

There is no mystery behind the rise in oil prices. They rose too high too fast because of booming demand for oil for petrochemical products, electric power and shipping from many emerging economies (particularly China, India and the Middle East). Meanwhile, the supply of oil slipped in the US, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria and Russia.

Now, I’m not saying that the futures and options markets have absolutely no effect on the global price of petroleum. All I’m saying is that its effect is greatly exaggerated for political reasons.

When Congress returns from vacation expect more heated rhetoric on this issue; there are currently at least ten bills submitted by Democrats attempting to address “speculation.” I blame congress for legitimizing the arguments put forth by bloggers like Mr. Whitney: No quarter is given to facts or to the unintended consequences that may follow bad legislation.

U.S. policies limit our oil production

While China readies to drill oil not far off the coast of Florida, our congress refuses to tap into the vast oil reserves off of our coast. Read a great post at The Real World on our terrible energy policy and what is needed to remedy it.

What a Cap and Trade bureaucracy would look like!

Holy crap!! The following chart is from the U.S. Chamber of commerce and it carefully details how the Lieberman – Warner climate bill would work. Woe to us if this bill ever gets put to law. This would be just another big and expensive government mandate that promises more than it can deliver. See the whole report in PDF form here

HT: Heritage Foundation

State Licensing in Louisiana for Florists

From Forbes

“Most people want to make sure their doctors and lawyers have the proper credentials to work, but should the same be expected of fortune tellers and florists?”

“Regulators in some states think so. If you want to read palms in Maryland or sell flower arrangements in Louisiana, you'll need a license to do it.”

Comment: So you want to go into business for yourself and you were thinking about opening up a small flower shop. You have always wanted to be a florist and you have a talent for it too. It’s your life long dream and you have finally saved up enough cash to make it happen. No more working for someone else. No more of having your work depend on the whims of someone else. No more of working hard for no recognition. You will be the master of your own destiny. It’s the American dream.

Well, if you live in the state of Louisiana, your dreams of being a florist will be dashed against the sharp rocks of state regulations. In the state of Louisiana, a person must be licensed to become a florist. Oh but the absurdity doesn’t just exist in Louisiana. There are all sorts of odd-ball occupations that require licenses in some states. In Maryland, you will need a license to become a “fortune teller.” In Michigan, a license is needed to be a “reptile catcher.” In Rhode Island, a Jai Alai player will need a license and in Arizona a license will be needed to be a “Rain maker.”

Since the talk of regulation and regulating has started to become ever so prominent in our country’s collective conversation as of late. We are reminded by the examples above of what state regulators can create: A bureaucracy that easily costs consumers more, and prevents entry into a given industry thereby insulating that industry from competition.

Is it really necessary to require florists to be licensed while those that have been in business before the regulation took affect are “grandfathered” into a license? Is that fair? And does the exam really need to be as difficult as the above article states it is? The trend in the U.S. over the last 25 years or so has been favorable to less regulatory red tape. Unfortunately, we may be seeing that change soon with the sort of regulatory licensing that states like Louisiana and others have enacted to “protect the public.”