QuERI- International - quantifying the world
  • Home
  • The Rings of Armageddon -- Serial Form
    • Rings Serial
  • QuERI Papers on Global Issues
  • Analytical Papers using QuERI Data
  • The Phoenix Agenda Trilogy
    • The Phoenix Year
  • Available Data
    • Clients
    • Countries Available
    • Product Forecasts Described
    • Forecast Types Available >
      • Production
      • Market Demand Datasets
      • International Trade
      • Services
  • About
  • Blog
  • Methodology
    • Input-Output Models
  • Consulting Services
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • New Page
 QuERI Papers and Analysis -- Downloadable papers and studies written over the years that may be of interest today. 
Picture

26 Trillion is just a number

Twenty-six trillion is just a 26 with 12 zeros, from an economic point of view it is just a number, but from a political perspective, it is a cause.  My first job in the US government was in the Pentagon at the end of the Carter Administration and through the first years of the Reagan period.    I remember my first meeting with OMB listening to their explanation of how supply side economics worked – miracle of miracles that cutting taxes and more than doubling defense spending could end up balancing the budget.   Reagan grew the deficit from around $ 900 billion in September, 1980 to $ 2.6 trillion.  GW Bush added a bit more to the red ink, and the beat goes on.  When the Republicans are in office, money flows easily for friends and neighbors, but the deficit hawks come out for Democrats.
Some interesting ideas and a few rules….
If Republicans are interested in paying down the debt then they should read my lips – don’t cut taxes as you cut spending.  You can’t get surpluses without collecting taxes and it would be nice too not to cut the budget of the IRS.   
Okay, then if you get that – no reduction in revenues or tax rates, then we can begin with going after the debt overhang.  Let’s start with the largest single discretionary expenditure in the Federal budget – the DOD budget.  It stands at over $ 750 billion so that if we just half it, then we can get a good $ 350 billion in savings to be put to the paying down of the debt.  To do this we need to adopt the Trump’s idea of American First, moth ball the carrier groups, cut the Army to the size to support defending the Mexican-Canadian borders, mothball the Air Force fighter groups as unnecessary, beef up Space Command because its, let’s admit SG1 fans, sexy, keep Central Command to take care of terrorists, and modernize the nuclear deterrence welcome back the old Dr. Strangelove concept MAD—mutual assured destruction.   
We need more to pay down the debt so reigning in entitlements is the only place to do this.   Most of the money for Medicare and Medicaid goes to the oldest and frailest and the most costly to keep alive.  So here’s a good idea – lets phase out government payments for people over 85.   As to paying for nursing homes beyond that time, forget it, we need to save money, we need to pay down the debt, Ron Johnson says we have to not burden our children and grandchildren with it.   
If this is all making you as sick as its making me, raise your hand.  We can solve the entitlement mess by just eliminating the cap on Social Security and Medicare taxes, gradually raise the retirement age, and enforce age discrimination in the private sector.  We need our defense spending because it supports a high technology sector of the economy and maintains American influence in the world.  
The Real Answer is that the Debt Overhang Doesn’t Effect Anything in the Economy  
Interest rates over this entire forty years have been falling from the artificially inflated highs of the Reagan years to today’s rock bottom interest rates today.  Inflation was higher during the Reagan years, the Fed was far more restrictive.  Reagan average deficit $ 1.75 t /10.75%, GW Bush, $3.46 t/7.98%, Clinton $ 5.2t/6.16%, GWBush  $12.65 t/4.14%, Obama $16.08/2.58%, Trump $22.86/2.02%.  If the higher levels of debt doesn’t cause high rates (low rates are a function of the fact that government has to support a weaker economy). Reagan was able to get by averaging the yearly marginal gain in GDP to gain in debt, $ 1.70 increase in GDP for each $ 1 increase in debt.  Bill Clinton had an average of around $ 6.00 per dollar of debt due to running a surplus in his last year.    Obama facing the deep recession of the 2008-09 period and the increased spending to get the economy moving again was able to get a 65 cent return on the increase in debt, while Trumps return on debt is just 56 cents with an average growth in GDP of less than 1% for the four years of his Presidency (Obama averaged 1.6% growth over the eight years.). 
So Joe Biden and the Democrats need to go big.   The half a loaf offered by the few Republicans who still have a care for their constituents to get bipartisanship isn’t worth the trouble.  If the plan needs to be amended, amend it to reflect priorities, like getting the money to the people unemployed rather than to everyone.  Failure to spend is more dangerous than spending too much. 

21_trillion_dollar_-_post.docx
File Size: 27 kb
File Type: docx
Download File

Learn More
Picture

Winners and Losers from Global Trade  
​


In a grand effort to change the subject of the political discussion from Russia to something else, President Trump fired the opening shots in a new trade war.  Not content to destroy the solar industry by adding costs without adding supply to solar panels, or making South Korean washing machines more expensive without making American consumers more willing to buy US made (with foreign parts) machines from the one remaining American producer, President Trump fired off the big guns to try to save what remains of the US steel and aluminum industries with new tariffs.  The response was, of course, expected. 
Over the past twenty years or more I’ve tried to slow the steady erosion of the US industrial base against the tide of history, but right now, at this time, it is far too late to stop what is the inevitable shift in the global distribution of manufacturing.  To have saved the US Steel industry we would have had to force US companies to invest in the new furnaces and the US steel workers to cut their wages in a vain effort to gain advantages of scale and compete on price.  Our companies chose not to try to fight against the subsidies – from government direct aid to massive amounts of nearly free capital – but to regroup around a few, higher profit, subspecialties.    Steel has become highly specialized in more technology interesting and profitable alloys, leaving the lower end, construction steel and non-specialty steel to foreign producers with their massive scale economies.  The cost of this change has been, felt, in the secondary industries that transformed commodity steel in small operations scattered across the industrial rust belt.  The downstream industries have failed as the few remaining US steel companies with specialized products have maintained their shares.    The US Aluminum industry also has made changes that allow it to maintain its position in the world while fulfill its obligations to the environment. Less aluminum for cans, but more for aircraft and even military vehicles has left the industry largely with the same share of the world as it had in the past. 

Learn More
winners_and_losers_from_global_trade_--_final_version_march_5_2016.docx
File Size: 1641 kb
File Type: docx
Download File

Picture

A Micro-regional Strategy for Developing Countries​

​Industrialization has been happening in stages since the start of the machine age in the late 17th century.  Robbing countries of their intellectual property isn’t something new to the world, but has been going on since the start of the industrial period so we should not be surprised by Chinese industrial espionage.   When most of the advanced countries developed they were operating using a mercantile model, thus England had colonies for supply of raw materials and markets for finished manufactures.  The price of raw materials, wages of workers, and the finished price of the manufactured products were all in some alignment.  But what about today—what if the price that we pay for finished products including iron and steel and plastics is in line with the wages of workers in the advanced countries.  The price of raw materials then must reflect that higher prices.  Making a car in China with imported iron ore then may cost more than the prevailing wages of most workers.  When Ford made the Model T he priced it in a way that it could be afforded with some financing by the average worker in his factories.  Economists have spent many hours comparing the real cost of living in China compared to the United States – it is about 1/3rd as expensive for a similar standard of living for a Chinese than for an average American.  Thus the PPP index for China is 3 and the US 1.  But have Chinese wages kept up with Chinese internal prices.  Based on the graph below the Chinese wage compared to the US wage is 1/7th the US wage and the PPP is 1/3rd US living standards.  One reason for this is that the cost of raw materials to make the products is set not by Chinese internal prices but by international prices.  The cost of steel is set in Detroit, not Shanghai.  
Learn More
micro-regional.docx
File Size: 491 kb
File Type: docx
Download File

For more information, please contact:
Dr. David L Blond at querieconomics@gmail.com / 301-704-8942
Proudly powered by Weebly