“The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” Plato

  • Daily Quote:

    "Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit."

    Mahatma Gandh

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 90 other followers

  • Subscribe

  • Advertisements

Archive for the ‘Adam Smith’ Category

Palestinian Gets Death Sentence for Selling Home to Jews

Posted by Steve Markowitz on April 23, 2012

The Weekly Standard today published a barbaric story concerning the Palestinian Authority.  A former Palestinian official, Muhammad Abu Shahala, has been sentenced to death.  His heinous crime?  He reportedly had the gall to sell his home to Jews.

According to the Standard, shortly after the Palestinian Authority was established in 1994, one of the first laws they adopted was to make selling land to Jews a capital offense.  Another example of Muslim tolerance?

Barack Obama and other Leftists have proffered the view over the years that the problems between the Israelis and Palestinians would disappear if only both sides would sit down and talk.  How naïve.  The Palestinians and other Arab governments have been preaching anti-Semitism for decades.  They have raised their children filled with hate and bigotry.  Such hatred as deep-seated within their culture cannot be negotiated away.

Should the Palestinian Authority execute Abu Shahala, he will become another statistic added to the death side of the ledger by a corrupt and brutal Arab government.  How many innocents must die at the hands of these despots before the Arab masses get it?


Posted in Adam Smith, Anti-Semitism, Middle East | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Anti-Semitism at the Occupy Wall Street Rally

Posted by Steve Markowitz on October 14, 2011

In the early days of the Tea Party, some on the Left and in the mainstream media attempted to damage the movement by calling it racist.  That claim lost steam as it was patently untrue.  It was but another attempt by the Left to portray those who disagree with their political philosophy as either ignorant and/or racist.

While there are racist fringes in any political movement, the Right has to a great extent been purged of this disease due its sensitivity to such claims that came from the media’s focus on the Right’s legacy racism.  It wasn’t that long ago that Senator Trent Lott was purged of his leadership position in the Republican Party due to an insensitive comment at a Strom Thurmond birthday party.

The Left, on the other hand, has often been given a pass on the racism and anti-Semitism by the mainstream media.  When someone from the Left makes a racist or anti-Semantic remark, often it is excused by his Leftist associates with a comment such as “I know what’s in his heart”.

There is no better example of the pass the Left receives on racism than then one given to Barack Obama during his run for the presidency.  After Obama’s relationship with the racist Pastor Jeremiah Wright became public, the mainstream media and Democratic Party accepted his excuse that while he sat in the church and listened to Wright’s sermons for 20 years, he did not hear them.  Ludicrous!

Earlier this week, a video of one of the Occupy Wall Street’s protesters making aa Semitic rant was posted on YouTube, link provided below.  However, don’t expect the mainstream media to hold these Leftist protesters to the same standards they held the Tea Party.  Once again, this protester will be tagged as merely a fringe player on the Left and not representative of the movement; yet another pass for the Left.

The Democrat Party, who represents the Left, is a collection of special interests.  Many of these interest groups are legitimate with legitimate, if not misguided, causes.  However, the Democratic Party has also become home to radicals with racist, race baiting and anti-Semitic leanings.  That makes an anti-Semite, like the one ranting in the video, feel comfortable joining their rallies.  It also allows other protesters to ignore the cancer growing within the demonstration.

Posted in Adam Smith, Anti-Semitism, Occupy Wall Streed, Racism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

China’s Central Bank Raises Lending Rates Again

Posted by Steve Markowitz on February 18, 2011

On February 8, 2011 this Blog posted an article titled China’s Central Bank Raises Interest Rates. At that time China raised its central bank lending rate by 0.5%. to 3.0% in an effort to fight the growing inflation.  Today, China’s central bank announced another round of belt-tightening increasing the bank reserve requirement by 0.5%, the second such increase in 2011.

While much of the United States’ attention is focused on events in the Middle East and the teacher’s revolt in Wisconsin, other strategic events continue to march on.  China’s efforts to fight inflation have ramifications for the United States.  First, it indicates that inflation worldwide is a more significant problem than the figures published by the U.S. government.  In addition, China’s increasing interest rates will lead to higher rates in the U.S.

While the U.S. dollar is currently the world’s reserve currency, that advantage will not insulate the United States from Adam Smith’s invisible hand of the market.  As the U.S. continues to print dollars, at some point excess supply will ruin the value of the dollar.  China’s current interest rate moves are likely precursors to this reality.


Posted in Adam Smith, China, Deficits | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Capitalism Without Risk

Posted by Steve Markowitz on February 11, 2010

The current recession has been lengthy and continues on.  It has followed an unusually long period of prosperity, or at least the perception of prosperity.  In reality, the previous period included artificial prosperity, which led to the significant economic challenges we now face.

The perceived prosperity that proceeded the current recession included bubbles and periods of relatively minor economic downturns.  Neither type of event is unusual for economies that are growing.  However, it is the way the government responded to these events that caused each to morph into something far worse.

Bubbles and Crisis

The bar for what is considered an economic crisis has changed dramatically over the years.  Less than 40-years ago President Nixon put in wage and price controls when inflation reached the then unacceptable level of 4%.  In 1979 the Carter Administration bailed out Chrysler Corporation with a $1 billion loan.  Today such numbers are trivial.

Since Nixon’s and Carter’s interventions, the crises “requiring” intervention have become more frequent and costly, as the following partial list indicates:

  • 1987 – The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 500 points, then considered to be a calamity.  The government responded with massive liquidity injections.
  • Late 1980’s – The savings and loan crisis costs taxpayers about $125 billion and contributed to huge budget deficits on the early 1990’s.
  • 1997 – The South American, Asia and Russian currency crises hit with governmental interventions required on a world-wide basis.
  • 1997 to 2000 – The Dot.com and Telecom bubbles burst, costing investors billions.
  • 2001 – 9/11 caused a rapid economic slowdown.  The government responds with massive liquidity injections, historically low interest, and other incentives for consumers and businesses to take on debt and spend.
  • 2002Enron and Arthur Andersen meltdowns cost society billions.
  • 2007 – The housing bubble pops resulting in the Subprime Mortgage and banking crises of 2008.  The government then implicitly takes on responsibility for Fannie Mae’s debt with a potential obligation of $5 trillion
  • 2008 to 2009 – Government bailout of AIG cost taxpayers about $150 billion.
  • 2008 – Government bails out banks through TARP to the tune of about $700 billion.
  • 2009 – Government bails out of GM and Chrysler in excess of $50 billion.
  • 2010 – Most recently, sovereign debt is becoming problematic.  Greece will require a bailout from the European Union as it debt is in excess of $400 billion.  Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy are also on shaky ground.

It is not by coincidence that each of crises listed dwarfs the cost of the original Chrysler bailout of 1979.  Government intervention merely plugs the dyke.  Economic problems are not resolved, but instead the pressure builds for even larger.

What is next for the economy?  Economists use empirical evaluations to determine likely scenarios.  Given that their track record has not been stellar, and that the numbers used are often wrong, I believe that a simpler approach based on understanding how we got here, trends and human nature, to be a more valid method of forecasting.

Human Nature: Greed

Adam Smith’s, The Wealth of Nations, offers insight into human nature and the way we respond to needs and emotions.  His basic thesis is that in the long term, the balance of varying human behaviors is the best and most efficient way to manage a complex macro economy and will lead to the greatest wealth for all.

Example of Smith’s thesis:  An economy is made up of two farmers and two staples for the village. Farmer A raises corn and Farmer B, tomatoes.  Being the only corn grower, Farmer A’s greed leads him to raise corn prices to increase his income, but at a greater cost to the villagers.  Seeing the profit made on corn, Farmer B switches all of his production from tomatoes to corn.  An oversupply results and corn prices significantly drops, decreasing the profit for both farmers.  This also causes a tomatoe shortage for which the villagers are now willing to pay higher prices.  Both farmers then take a portion of their land to grow tomatoes.  Prices and the supply of both commodities ultimately stabilize, as well as each farmer’s profit.  Should either farmer try to increase the price of either commodity, the other will undercut him to increase market share.  The system remains in balance in the long term, but could have short-term imbalances.

With Smith’s thesis, why then has the economy of recent decades not been able to correct huge imbalances?  Why have we jumped from one bubble to another?  Have the rules of human nature changed making Smith’s thesis outdated or is something else at play?

Smith’s Thesis in a Modern Economy

The significant economic imbalances of recent years have not been caused by any change in human behavior since Smith’s time.  Instead, governments have tinkered much with the opposing economic checks and balances allowing greed to become unchecked, making the economy neither efficient nor in equilibrium.

In the two farmer example, let’s add a new player, the Farmers Protection Bureau (FPB).  The FPB’s charter is to protect the income of farmers so that they remain growers and therefore insure adequate food supplies.  In our example, when Farmers A and B put all of their production into corn, instead of letting prices drop to allow supply to match demand (and lower margins both farmers), the FPB purchases the excess supply of corn to support the higher price so that the farmers keep their profit margins.  Happy ending?  Not quite.  To pay the FPB subsidies, the government had to raises the villager’s taxes.  Just as problematic, both farmers decide to not produce tomatoes creating a tomato shortage.  The government’s intervention removed the risk of loss from over production and created market inefficiency.  At the same time it told the farmers that if they miscalculate on production planning, the FPB will come to their rescue in the future causing future market disruptions.

Response to Bubbles and Crisis

The government’s intervention in the example above mimics the real-world response governments have used when economic imbalances have occurred in recent decades.

The interventions listed above from the relatively small 1979 Chrysler bailout to huge bailouts of the past two years has resulted in a slippery slope that led to our growing economic crisis.  With each intervention, investors were taught that the government would do whatever was required to avoid market meltdowns, thus mitigating investor downside risk.  This has created an upward spiral of ever increasing risk taking during the past 30 years.  No matter how good the logic or intentions of the interventions, the unintended consequences have been ever increasing economic pain.  We have not seen the last bubble or crisis in this cycle.

Private Sector Culpability; The Neo-Capitalist

The government is not solely culpable for the economic imbalances.  Capitalists have run amuck with unchecked greed, the result of governmental bailouts that have taught them that risky behavior is not risky.  Investors rightfully believe they will be bailed out of any hair-brain investment that goes sour.  Special interest lobbyist from investment banks to labor unions use their clout to insure that the Washington politicos bail them out, even if not in the best interest of the country.

Another key item in the distortion of the moral hazard is the capitalists’ ability to use other people’s money (OPM).  OPM takes risk and responsibility from neo-capitalists.  Take the airline industry that was deregulated thirty years ago.  While lower fares have been the result, the entire industry has been on the brink of collapse for years.  This distortion occurred because the money invested in the airline industry was not that of the decision makers.  The professional managers and unions took their money when the companies should have said “no”.

Commercial banks are another example.  In the “old days” mortgages were given by local banks who kept the paper and risk.  They required 20% down and proof of a borrower’s ability to make payments.  What an outdated concept!  Bring in the Neo-capitalists and the result was the sub-prime mortgage mess.  Risk was moved from the mortage brokers to others through Wall Street, separating decision making from the “pain”.


History, common sense and understanding basic human nature are good tools for predicting future economic events.  Based on these items, it is probable that the real economic crisis remains in front of us.  The historical trends are clear.  Major economic disruptions are occurring with increased frequency.  The costs of the governments’ interventions are increasing.  Finally, the long-term effects of the damaged moral hazard are yet to play out.

Adam Smith’s theories remain relevant today.  The market will ultimately take corrective action to bring supply and demand back into equilibrium, no matter how many times the government attempts puts its finger in the dyke.  The longer they hold back correction of the imbalances, the more serious the corrective action will be.

In 1979, the bailout was a mere $1 billion for the third largest American auto manufacturer.  Now, the problems are no longer a failing company, but a failing nation with Greece’s debt in excess of $400 billion.  How much better off would the economy would be now had we let Chrysler fail in 1979?

Posted in Adam Smith, Bailouts, economics, Free Markets | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments »