American Intelligence Test: The Economy Is To Benefit Whom? Wall Street and Regulation

Congress is moving to deregulate the financial industry on the premise that it will unleash the economy and spur investment, growth and jobs. The justification for doing this is that the regulations (Dodd-Frank) are stifling our economy, jobs growth, business investment, harming consumers, trade, and American competitiveness. Certainly, there is nothing undesirable in hoping to achieve a better and stronger economy, creating more and better paying jobs, strengthening the private sector, securing more wealth for our citizens, increasing our domestic side of trade performance, and being more competitive in the global arena. But just because the aspirational justification for Congress’ decisions are aligned with a goal that every American would want, doesn’t mean that those decisions are necessarily correct or appropriate to achieving those ends. So, it’s not as ‘simple’ as how our politicians operate, that is, wishing for what they want because they have ideological principles that they ‘believe’ bring about the type of results that they want. If their ideology delivered what they wanted, you will have to explain why following them in the past has been erratic, contradictory (sometimes a success, sometimes a failure), differing by who’s in control politically, and changing as non-politicians demonstrate that the politicians were completely wrong and/or incompetent.

This leaves us with the obvious issue regarding the forthcoming deregulation: Is it informed and based on reality (laws of physics, principles of economics, and societal values) or is it an instance of following ideological views that are not informed by reality? Now if the ideology is informed that would be promising but only if our understanding of what’s real is accurate. Since there are multiple ideologies, they can’t all be correct; in fact, there is no guarantee that any of them are. The most likely is that some will be better than others, and parts of those are reliable and parts are just wishful. Finding the parts that really work is smart, and finding the parts that don’t and discarding them is even smarter. This explains why politicians never question their ideologies. It imposes a requirement on them that they cannot provide. It’s why we rely upon those who pursue scientific, technological, engineering, and mathematics skills to create the advances that deliver the things that constitute our society and its economy.

So, what do our politicians’ ideological views and their financial regulatory reform tell us about what they think versus what they know? How about you?

Question A:   Which measures determine how well/poor the economy is doing?

(1). Stock Market value

(2). Gross Domestic Product

(3). Trade Balance/In-Balance

(4). Jobs: Employment / Unemployment

(5). Interest Rates

(6). Tax Rates

(7). Inflation Rates

(8). Infrastructure

(9). National Defense Budget

(10). National Debt

(11). Broadening Distribution of Wealth in Population

Question B:   How would you rate the present US economy?

(1). Excellent

(2). Very Good

(3). Good

(4). Average

(5). Poor

(6). Very Poor

(7). Abysmal

Question C:   The number of banks in the nation has declined. Does that indicate that the economy is being harmed by current regulations?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Question D:   Is the risk to the US economy accounted for in the regulatory reform?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Question E:    Is the risk to consumers / investors accounted for in the regulatory reform?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Question F:    Do the new regulations provide for accountability or consequence-based requirements on the financial industry companies?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Question G:   Who pays the price if the reformed regulation turns out to not improve the economy but harms it with another Great Recession or worse?

(1). Financial firms and banks

(2). Non-Financial businesses

(3). Government

(4). Public

(5). Tax-payers

(6). High income: top 1% earners

(7). Upper income: top 10% earners

(8). Middle income: 40% to 80% earners

(9). Lower income: 20% to 40% earners

(10). Poverty level income: bottom 10% earners

Question H:   Is there a better approach for reforming the financial regulatory environment than what the politicians are proposing?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Question I:      Is Government regulation bad for business?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Question J:    Does capitalism guarantee a free-market, a living wage, and a strong economy?

(1). Yes

(2). No

ANSWERS:

Answer - A:  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11

Rationale - A:      All these items, except 6 and 9, provide a measure of the US’s economic condition. Stock Market is at all-time high, GDP is at all-time high, Trade In-Balance is still negative for US on goods but positive for services, the net is negative. Current trade deficits are lower than when it peaked in 2006. Employment is at an all-time high and unemployment is near the low nominal level. Prime Interest rates are at historically low. Inflation rates are at historic lows for last 10 years.  Infrastructure is severely underfunded and deteriorating for decades. The National Debt is at an historic high causally linked to 2008 fiscal economic crisis. The demographics of wealth in the US is contracting with a further concentration to the highest earners.

Tax rates are not a measure of the economy but have some influence on how the overall economy responds. The Defense budget is similarly an influencing factor but is not a direct measure of how well or poorly the economy is performing.

Answer - B:  3

Rationale - B:      The US’s economy is generally doing well. It has more than recovered from the “Great Recession”. It’s most significant issues are the National Debt, Trade In-Balance, and Infrastructure. The challenge is to sustain the economy’s growth while effectively managing to reduce the negative drag that these issues have on that growth.

While the overall economy is doing well, there are some areas where locally there are problems. An issue for those localities that are doing less-well or poorly will be whether the nation’s economic growth will directly translate to factors that will improve their situation. There is no guarantee that a rising tide in one area will lift a boat in another.

Answer - C:  No

Rationale - C:      Before the regulation there was an economic trend for the consolidation and acquisition of banking entities by larger banks and financial institutions. This would likely be an indication of how the economic value of consolidation was driving that activity. It more likely that for the executives and shareholders of the acquiring banks there was a more positive economic value than there was for the smaller or local banks to remain independent. The long-term implications may be good or bad, but the immediate value was and appears to continue to be in consolidation. That may not be good for you, but when did what’s good for you drive investments by others?

Answer - D:  No

Rationale - D:      Congress is playing the ‘wishful’ think card. They have a view that less regulation will improve the economy and thus are serving the interests of the banks/financial industry who want to see less regulation. Congress is choosing to believe that ‘no one will be stupid enough to make the same mistakes again’.  I suspect that Congress isn’t considering the evidence that voters return them to office over and over again; which would argue that ‘doing stupid again’ is pretty usual.

Answer - E:  No

Rationale - E:      The deregulation efforts encompass an initiative to eradicate regulations that were intended to protect consumers. From that perspective, the new rules will increase the risks not curtail them. There are no efforts to account for that risk, and certainly nothing to respond to negative outcomes if their deregulation were to result in greater harm than good. This is the usual manner for Congress to operate. One could argue that the reason that they are ‘fixing’ the regulations is that they failed to account for or even understand how to identify what would constitute ‘harm’ in the current regulation. It’s a vicious cycle for Congress: Screw up, Fix it, Screw up, Fix it, Screw up, …

Answer - F:  No

Rationale - F:      The new deregulated environment doesn’t establish any goals or objectives for the financial industry to achieve in order to warrant the deregulation; rather, Congress is ‘hoping’ that this will make things ‘better’. Now if you were to ask Congress how will it be ‘better’ and can they guarantee it, Congress will look at you as if you had asked them: Can you tell me exactly how to cure every form of cancer, and guarantee the cure?

Answer - G:  4, which leads to the following being encompassed: 2, 5, 8, 9, 10

Rationale - G:     In an economy, there is ultimately only one group; it’s the public, the tax payers. They are the only entities that can pay, or more accurately that can be held to account. This is as true for our capitalistic system as it is for a communistic system, or any other.

Businesses are impacted but they are owned by members of the public, so it’s only a level of indirection that confuses how much some individuals are effected versus others.

Across the income levels, the groups most significantly impacted by severe economic downturns are the lower earners. This is mostly due to the greater dependence of these earners to their wages to live in the near-term. This is less true of the higher earners, and almost irrelevant to the top.

Answer - H:  Yes

Rationale - H:      Congress will choose to reform based on ideology or based on the special interests that provide campaign funding. There is no necessary connection between either the ideological perspective or the interests of a select group, and that approaches an ability to produce a desired economic result. The proposal doesn’t say what it will do and how that will be measured, only that ‘magic’ will happen.

Answer - I:  No

Rationale - I:        Bad regulation is probably bad for business, but then some bad regulation is good for business. Good regulation is good for business unless it is bad for business. The problem is that it’s not a question of “all or none”. You can’t find many, maybe even one, politician who will claim that ‘all’ regulations are bad. Is preventing employers from exposing employees to toxic materials a ‘bad’ regulation? Assuming you agree that this is one regulation that is good for business, it may be that there is another. There are also bad regulations, which many people seem to accept as undisputed and thus don’t appear to require further discussion.

Answer - J:  No

Rationale - J:       Capitalism concerns who owns and controls assets that are used to produce income, value, wealth. It doesn’t guarantee a free-market, in fact capitalism could as easily create a monopoly-market (which it has) as easily. Capitalism would be prone to providing a subsistence wage left to its own devices, which would be disadvantageous to the overall benefit of the economy but requires a sufficient understanding of the principle of economics and the laws of physics. Capitalism does produce a strong economy when it is well managed, but can be disastrous if left to the skill set of those without sufficient knowledge, like politicians.