09


What are governments capable of doing? To answer that question, let us examine their sources of funding. At the state and local level, funding originates with taxes, Federal Government funds, and extensions of credit (bond issues). Unlike the Federal Government, they do not have the luxury of spending more than they have. When they do spend more than they have, they have to cut back on the services they provide, raise taxes, travel to Washington to ask for more funding, or all of the above. Presently, 46 of 50 states are experiencing budget shortfalls, implying those states may have to implement some of those measures.


The Federal Government’s funding primarily comes via taxes and tariffs (at one point in our history the Federal Government operated mostly on tariffs!). When they spend more than they have, funding comes from other sources. The Federal Government historically has the reputation as the best credit risk so investors (foreign and domestic) are willing to lend money through Treasury sales of Bonds, Notes, and Bills. Their credit base is even broader through a unique link to the Federal Reserve allowing Fed purchases of US Treasury debt. The Fed “lends” money to the US Treasury by creating bookkeeping entries. The “money” from these bookkeeping entries emerges out of thin air. The Federal Government has capabilities that other governmental entities or other market participants do not.


Now that we have established what governments can do, let us explore what the public’s capabilities are.
Economies are expressions of what people do. Participants in an economy act on their own behalf (what is best for them) in a manner that meets the satisfaction of others acting on their own behalf. The collective action of all of these participants is the Market. Therefore, the Market is a collection of many people acting on their own behalf for the benefit of others.
What is the government’s relationship to the Market? The government protects the market. Government protects the market by enacting laws or regulations along two main Principles:


1. Do onto others as they would do onto you – the basis of criminal law.
2. Do what you said you would do – the basis of contract law.


If you lived in a society where you had to worry about Principle #1 or Principle #2, it would be hard to have a market. There would be constant fear that someone was trying to inflict physical harm (Principle #1) or that you could not trust your market transactions with others (Principle #2). Government is responsible for creating an environment in which a market can operate safely.
As one can imagine, the Market is in a continual state of change. The Market changes due to changes in judgment on the part of its individual participants. A snapshot of the Market at any point in time reveals the “price” or exchange rate for something. The “price” or exchange rate is simply an agreement between two parties - nothing more, nothing less. Human actions create the Market.


Markets tell producers what to produce and in what quantities to produce them. Markets also tell consumers what to consume and in what quantities to consume them. What if the price of filet mignon were $0.10 per pound? How would consumers react? Similarly imagine the price of filet going to $1,000 per pound. How would consumers react then? In both cases, the Market dictates behavior.


In order for the government to protect the Market, it has to be a participant in the Market. Government inserts themselves in the Market buying raw materials, equipment, and labor. The government’s sources of revenue are tariffs and taxes. When more funding is needed, government borrows. The borrowing occurs in the Market alongside anyone else needing to borrow. They are also part of the Market when they sell their goods and services. Please understand this point. The Government, like anyone else, is a Market participant. The Government is not a supernatural or mystical being orbiting earth sprinkling magic dust on its inhabitants. Moreover, the Government is nothing more than the people allow it to be. The Government is the people.


The people allowed Government to expand well beyond their intended roles in the Market. The current economic crises gave Government an opportunity to expand its role further. Some call this expansion socialism. Socialism, in fact is a more comprehensive control of the economy. The Austrian economist Von Mises argued in Human Action, that an economy is either socialist or capitalist. If the economy is socialist, then government plans everything. If the economy is capitalist, then the Market dictates what happens. As large as government has become, it remains a minority player in comparison the rest of the economy.


That said, Government is consuming more of the Market’s resources (raw material, equipment, labor). Since its sources of revenue (tariffs and taxes) are considerably less now in this economic environment, it must borrow more. Unlike private enterprise who enacts austerity measures during times of greatly reduced revenue, our government has actually spent more. Market participants (you, me, and others) are marginalized when Government expands beyond its natural economic boundaries. The Market will ultimately judge Government’s performance.


Jim Mosquera is the author of The Sentinel financial newsletter www.TheSentinel.biz. Mr. Mosquera’s email address is jim@TheSentinel.biz

Comments

st. louisville cards
# st. louisville cards
Thursday, July 09, 2009 9:25 AM
I think the government is far more than a minor player in the market. Over the past decade the government has been more directly involved in the market (taking over GM, expanding gov't health care programs, etc.), but for the past 70-80 years the government has screwed up the market through overregulation, misregulation and power mongering.
The best example of over and mis-regulation would be Sarbanes-Oxley. You mentioned in a previous article how the government is only reactionary to bubbles and by that point it is too late. Sarbanes-Oxley is exactly that and it is a waste. For those who don't know Sarbanes-Oxley was passed in reaction to the accounting scandals of the late 1990's and early 2000's (Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, etc.). The libs love Sarbanes-Oxley because they think it keeps those evil businesses in check, in reality the only thing Sarbanes-Oxley has done is cost legitimate, law abiding businesses millions of dollars in added accounting fees. Everything Sarbanes-Oxley regulates was already illegal. The Execs at WorldCom, Tyco, and Enron have been convicted on the existing laws. It is the typical example of how reactionary policy serves little if no purpose, but to stiffle commerce.
cardsbadabing
# cardsbadabing
Thursday, July 09, 2009 2:36 PM
Jim, nice article. I think I know which side of the political fence you're on, but regardless I like how you're laying everything out and painting a picture both sides can understand. I have a hunch that you're building up to something, and I'm looking forward to reading about it.
The Sentinel
# The Sentinel
Thursday, July 09, 2009 4:32 PM
I really was not intimating that the government is a minor player, in absolute terms, in the market. They are large indeed. One point of the article is to note that irrespective of how large government has become it is still not the whole market or even a majority of the market. As such it cannot operate independently of the market. Regrettably much of our policy operates as if the government is an omnipotent being. It is not and eventually, the market (whatever definition one ascribes to it) will punish it.

With respect to my political affiliation, I strive to provide as independent an analysis as possible so readers can truly view these issues without political goggles. It appears I am accomplishing this :)
Ron Hardin
# Ron Hardin
Thursday, July 09, 2009 6:38 PM
Nice article. More people need to familiarize themselves with the Austrian economic theories. I'd like to add one more market function of government to your list that often is the most destructive of all: The Federal Reserve's ability to manipulate interest rates and monetary value. Especially during the last two major bubbles (tech and real estate) the artifically low rates hurt the through obscuring the real level of risk at a given time in the economy.

A recent book by Thomas Woods titled Meltdown applies Mises and Hayek's theories to the last bubbles and even some of the larger market disturbances in American history. A government can inflict massive amounts of damage through manipulating interest rates and monetary values. Currently, the Fed is pushing interest rates extremely low in an attempt to prop up prices - especially home prices - at the same high levels that contributed to the eventual collapse of the market. At a time when lenders need to return to some semblance of sane credit requirements, the government is pushing banks and individuals to return to the same risky lending and borrowing practices that caused this mess which really threatens to extend and deepen the current recession.
The Sentinel
# The Sentinel
Thursday, July 09, 2009 7:48 PM
Ron,

Thanks for the reference to "Meltdown". I will have to check it out. Perhaps a topic for another article but it is often thought that the Federal Reserve leads the interest rate market. I can actually show many instances where the Fed follows the market. Additionally, the interest rate actually set by the Fed is quite narrow in scope. The interest rate tied to long term loans is linked to US Treasury securities (Notes and Bonds). Those rates are truly set by the market. A central point of the article is how ultimately government will be affected by the Market and the very last thing the government can do is destroy the Treasury market. The government is SO reliant on the Treasury market that our Treasury Secretary has to make furtive trips to Asia to provide reassurances to bond holders.

Post Comment

Only registered users may post comments.