Successful Subsidized Energy? Not so fast...

The news coming out of the German energy market is a fascinating case study but it follows the typical pattern. Central planners decide they want to influence the supply and demand by manipulating producers and consumers. They are successful in that they get more of what they subsidize and less of what they penalize. However, they also have unintended consequences. In this case it is surpluses and shortages, reminiscent of the gas shortages of the 70s in the US and numerous other examples in the USSR. Laws are in place preventing the individuals from making adjustments to address the imbalance, in this case compulsory preference for the intermittent energy sources (solar and wind). Consumers still need a reliable source of energy that can pick up the slack when solar and wind are unavailable, but government interference is discouraging investing in conventional plants. Since the people are bound by law from fixing the problem it falls to the central planners to develop a solution. Their answer is as typical as it is ironic; subsidize coal plants.

But wait! Consumers are getting paid to use energy! They're getting it for free, right? Well not exactly. The subsidies aren't free; they are simply obfuscated by the tax code. Furthermore they represent a compulsory cost; what people pay to subsidize the energy industry is disassociated from their purchasing choices or their actual energy use.

The definition of insanity is doing the same things and expecting different results. Central planning consistently results in shortages and excesses, increased collective costs borne by the taxpayer, disenfranchising of the consumer and empowerment of the centralized planners and their crony capitalist / special interest lackeys. This latest example from Germany is no exception.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-29/utilities-giving-away-power-as-wind-sun-flood-european-grid.html

Financing a $447 Billion Stimulus Injection

A recent article phrased the new stimulus plan as “injecting $447 billion into the economy,” which made me stop and think. Where exactly is this money coming from? I doubt the politicians in Washington are going to pay for it out of the vaults at Fort Knox (which would only cover about $278 billion or a little over half the bill anyway). That just leaves us with the three usual suspects; taxes, treasuries and the printing press.

Raiding private investment capital, ie: raising taxes, in order to “create jobs” is absurd. If the money was actually directed towards funding projects, it would simply mean diverting money from privately planned investment into politicians’ pet projects (a time-honored way of ensuring reelection). This plan will also use that money to extend unemployment checks, which is just as foolish. I would rather let someone buy a boat, thereby paying someone for building the boat, then tax the money away and hand it out as an unemployment check. However, this plan also includes tax cuts (without accompanying spending cuts), which leaves us with the other two options.

For the past few decades, we’ve gone to foreign investors to finance our government spending. The problem with this approach is two-fold. First, by competing for foreign investment dollars we crowd out private investment. In other words, businesses that are looking to finance expansion and real job creation are competing with the Federal government for the same scarce resource of investment capital. Secondly, those bonds incur interest payments down the road. That interest will have to be paid in the future from the same three sources (taxes, debt or inflation) which is the sort of kick-the-can politics that Washington D.C. loves.

That leaves the final source of funding; the printing press. The treasury prints the cash to cover the portion of the debt financed by the Federal Reserve. In simple terms, printing new money makes the money in savings and circulation worth less. Some people support this, since it makes our products cheaper for export. However, it makes everything we import (which is quite a lot these days) more expensive. It also hurts people living on fixed incomes and makes a joke out of long-term investment planning. In other words, it contributes to job-killing instability.

“Injecting” $447 billion really means deciding between taking domestic investment capital, competing for foreign investment capital, and pillaging our remaining savings. Instead of reactionary short-term fixes and more government controlled pork-barrel projects, we need to be thinking long-term. Stop spending taxes frivolously. Stop jerking the economic steering wheel by meddling with the currency. Return control (and money) to consumers and small businesses.  Let them drive the economy the way they’ve driven it since our national inception. They don’t need to be “stimulated” to make that work.

Make Mine Freedom

This is a fantastic cartoon.  It was true sixty years ago, just like it was true two hundred years ago and just like it's true today:

http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com/2009/09/this-cartoon-seemed-far-fetched-in-1948.html