Sunday, May 16, 2010

Texas: Blue State to Red State? Try Brown State

The San Antonio Express lead story Sunday tells about the changing face of Texas. Currently, Hispanic children now make up 49% of the K-12 public school enrollment, whereas Anglo children now make up 33% of public school enrollments.Using 2000 census figures, we can see the percentage changes over just 9 years. In 2000, Anglo children comprised 43% of the enrollment and Hispanic children slightly less at just under 40%. In slightly less than a decade, Hispanic children now outnumber Anglo children 3:2. Projections to 1940 show that the percentage of Anglo children in state schools would be less than 20%. Hispanics would make up 2/3rds of the school population three decades from now.

(source of data below from window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/workforce/demo.php)


As of 2006, the table below shows ethnicity changes in Texas from 1980 to 2006. As of 2006, the Anglo population was significantly higher than the Hispanic population, however the figures are virtually reversed when only considering the school age demographic. Today's voters represent an Anglo majority, if there is such a thing, in terms of ethnicity. Tomorrow's votes, as the statistics show, will represent a Hispanic majority. No group is homogeneous as far as political ideology, but the numbers are something to think about.

Exhibit 1-1

Race/Ethnicity in Texas, 1980-2006

Racial/Ethnicity Group Percent of Population 1980 Percent of Population 1990 Percent of Population 2000 Percent of Population 2006
Anglo 65.7% 60.6% 53.1% 48.3%
Hispanic 21.0% 25.6% 32.0% 35.7%
African American 11.9% 11.6% 11.6% 11.4%
Other 1.4% 2.2% 3.3% 4.6%

 The Houston Chronical reports the following:
Almost six out of 10 Texas public schoolchildren hail from low-income families, marking a troubling spike in poverty over the last decade, a new state report finds.
The increase coincides with a significant jump in the number of Hispanic students, while fewer Anglo students were enrolled last year than 10 years ago, according to the study by the Texas Education Agency. Schools also are educating many more children whose primary language is not English.
 These figures are staggering. If these children do not rise above their current economic status, that would indicate at some point in the future 60% of the adult population could fall below the poverty level. There is no possibility that either the State or the Federal Government could provide a safety net large enough to cover all of their needs.

Saturday, May 15, 2010

Our Government is Basically a Bad Bank

Have you ever considered that our country’s deficit funding is analogous to a badly run bank?

Historically, a bank loans money to qualified borrowers who use the proceeds to grow their assets, perhaps by purchasing equipment which grows their business or buying a car that allows the individual to go to work (grow someone else business) and earn money. The loan is beneficial to the borrower because the extra money allows him to grow assets he would otherwise be unable to attain. He then pays back the loan with interest which enriches the lender. Once the bank begins making a number of loans in which the proceeds are used unproductively, the bank has a problem. For example, the bank might make an unsecured loan of $3,000 to an unemployed person who then buys an HD TV. The borrower makes two or three minimum payments and then defaults. The bank loses.

If you examine the budgetary system in the United States, all expenditures in excess of tax revenue are funded by loans via treasury auctions. The holders of the bonds (pension funds, investment banks, individual investors, foreign countries, etc.) must be paid back with interest. But how is this money used? Are the majority of the funds used to build highways and electricity grids that will eventually prove to be an asset? Are most of the proceeds spent on bureaucracy, entitlement payments, welfare, billion dollar embassies in the desert and other projects practically guaranteed to never generate income? If government spending does not generate growth equal to or greater than the rate of interest paid on the bonds, eventually the government defaults and the bond holders get stiffed.

The above scenario is unfolding. Deficit spending, largely geared toward transfer payments, and other non-productive projects (for an example, see article on Boeing project) does not generate the growth needed to pay off bond holders. But unlike the community bank that has to eat losses when it makes a loan to a deadbeat, holders of US treasuries must be paid back – even if the United States government is the equivalent of a deadbeat.

Before we look at the United States, let’s examine Greece. Other European countries, particularly France and Germany, are large bond holders of Greece debt. Greece has spent massively on various entitlements since joining the European Union. Now, Greece has reached the point they cannot make interest payments on their loans, hence Germany and France have a problem. Greece, with just around 2% of the GDP of Europe, is considered too big to fail. France and most of Europe want to extend more loans to Greece which would allow Greece to be able to continue making interest payments which they currently can no longer make. It’s kind of like a person that has $20,000 on his VISA account, but no longer can come up with the minimum payment. VISA, rather than writing off a loss, extends the borrower another $10,000. Now the borrower owes $30,000, but with the $10,000 in new loans, he will be able to make minimum payments once again; for a while. Germany is reluctant to go along with the arrangement because they realize in the long run Greece will default anyway, and by bailing Greece out with additional loans, the default will only be larger.

The model in America is much the same. Our demographics are such that future entitlement funding will grow year after year and current rates will not generate enough revenue to pay for them. Entitlement expenditures are unproductive in the sense they don’t grow the economy very much (probably zero), and the interest on the bonds sold to fund these entitlements will simply result in raising the ratio of debt to GDP.

Some would argue that the economy is cyclical and will soon turn around, resulting in additional tax revenue which would reduce the amount needed to borrow. This is an incorrect assumption. Debt has saturated the economy to the point it cannot expand. Money is tight, thus personal spending is not going to increase. The rate of housing defaults will continue to accelerate. High paying jobs are being constantly phased out. As part of global wage arbitrage companies continue to outsource production facilities overseas. With government wealth transfers (spending via more debt), the economy might grow more than otherwise, but for each additional dollar of debt spent by the government, the economy will grow proportionately less than one dollar. In other words, the more the government spends to inject life in the economy, the bigger the hole that gets dug.

Europe will now begin austerity measures. Basically, austerity measures are designed to transfer the debt from the public sector to the individual citizens. If successful, the government structure remains, the bond holders continued to get paid, and the standard of living declines for the population.

When the nation began, Thomas Jefferson argued against a Central Bank. Alexander Hamilton wanted a powerful Central Bank. Hamilton eventually won. By the time the 1830’s arrived, the Central Bank was considered a corrupt institution which was beginning to bankrupt citizens. Andrew Jackson successfully dismantled the Bank and the country survived for another 80 years ago until the Federal Reserve system was founded in 1913.

How might a government run without a Central Bank? Theoretically, there would not have to be an income tax. This country did not have an income tax until the early 1900’s. People would keep all of their wages. Government would fund projects (highway systems, defense spending, etc.) by simply printing money. Wouldn’t this be inflationary? Whether the money is printed, or loaned into existence via treasury auctions (debt) as it is now, the money supply would not change. The burden on the public of having to pay back interest would be eliminated. The middlemen (the Central Bank and various bond holders) would be eliminated. If the government wanted to add entitlement programs, then I think you’d develop problems because this would involve printing money for unproductive purposes, resulting in inflation.

For now, we’re stuck with the system we have. If we converted over, bond holders would quickly sell their bonds and we’d experience an hyper inflationary currency collapse.

We should have listed to Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.