Has America’s Capital Gone To Galt’s Gulch?


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

In Ayn Rand’s epic novel, Atlas Shrugged, John Galt and other who believe in free market capitalism become fed up with the ever more intrusive government, which has destroyed the free market system, so they create their own secret capitalist paradise and one by one they disappear from the American scene.

While doing some research on the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, I came across this graph, at Financial Sense,  which left me staring at it with my mouth open for what seemed to be about five minutes. It is a graph of Net Domestic Investment produced by the US Department of Commerce.

net domestic investment

To be honest, I don’t know what this graph is telling us. The note inside the graphic says it is a plot of Gross Domestic Investment Minus Consumption of Fixed Capital as a percentage of GDP. But, I am pretty sure that when net domestic investments falls to zero or less, it can’t be good for America.

Two things stand out in my mind. One is that the trend has been going on for a long time. The other is: what the hell is consumption of fixed capital? So, I decided I needed to read that part of the Financial Sense article a bit closer. Remember that this article is about the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Here is what the author was saying that led up to him introducing the above graph. The “bold” was done by me.

In the case of an unbacked reserve currency, the ‘benefits’ of lower borrowing costs accruing to the issuing country appear to result in overborrowing and overconsumption relative to the rest of the world, eroding the domestic manufacturing base over time and widening the rich-poor gap to levels that are socially destabilising….

For those who think that a capitalist, free-market economy would never consume its own capital, outside of wartime, you may be right. But what of an economy that merely pretends to be capitalist and free market, but in fact sets the price of money by decree at an artificially low level so that there is little incentive to save?…

So, the author is saying that artificially low-interest rates cause over-borrowing and over consumption and less savings and that is what is meant by consumption of fixed capital. It makes sense that people would decide not to save and instead spend when banks interest are likely negative when adjusted for inflation. But, that graph must include the net investments of businesses too. Still confused,, I decided to ask the opinion of my friend at the American Chronicles blog, who just happens to go by the handle of “John Galt”, about this graph. This was his reply:

Net domestic investment is low due to the diminishing savings rate and the growth of the current account deficit. Depreciation of capital assets need higher replacement rates that it is not keeping up due to lower economic growth.

John also suggest that I might find an article by Michael Mandel, an economist for the Progressive Policy Institute, of interest. And, I thank him because the Mandel article uses a similar graph that net investment by business and household shown as separate lines. Let’s take a look:

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Okay. Now we know that it is not just individuals who are using up their savings. Businesses also are not investing in America. Do you think this might explain why we have been see the workforce participation declining for years? I think so. But, Mr. Mandel has a third line on his graph. The green line represents government net investments. What does Mr. Mandel have to say about these results?

This chart, which runs through the third quarter of 2011, displays several disturbing patterns:

  • Despite rebounding from its recession valley, net business investment as a share of net domestic product is still far below historical levels.
  • Household and institutional net investment as a share of net domestic product  is at a 40-year low.
  • And perhaps most disturbing, government net investment is only 1% of  net domestic product, a 40-year low.

And, what does Mr. Mandel, a progressive conclude?

Let me repeat that: Government net investment as a share of net domestic product is at a 40-year low. I had to check this last one a couple of times to make sure it was really true.  This is a true failure of national economic policy. Government is punking out, just at the time when a public investment surge is needed to make up for the private investment drought.  As a country, we should be investing more, not less.

Of course! Like any good progressive the answer is more government spending investment. But, here is what I want you, my dear readers, to consider. Mr. Mandel correctly pointed out that government, household and business net investments are at a forty-year low. Does it ever occur to people like Mandel and the idiots we send to Washington to ask WHY? By idiots in Washington I mean those with a D or a R after their names. Over forty years, both parties have had more than ample opportunity to address this problem.

To Mr. Mandel, I would like to ask hom if he ever considered that the reason government” investment” is at a forty-year low is that 60% of the government’s budget is for the so-called entitlement programs. When you add the debt service cost and national security, that doesn’t leave much for government “INVESTMENTS”, does it Mr. Mandel?

Sadder still, dear friends, is what our Big Government Democrats and our Big Government Republicans have done to this country. It never occurs to them that if Americans and American businesses are not investing in America, that just maybe it has something to do with the asinine fiscal policies they have pursued for the last forty years? Does the word “growth” ever  occur to the Democrats or Republicans in Washington? Has anyone heard that word bantied about during the “sequestration” debates of the last few weeks? I’ve not heard it, if it has.

Maybe the reason everyone is headed for Galt’s Gulch is that no one in Washington gives a damn about our country. They only care about being reelected.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Asylum Watch


Liberal to English Translation


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

I know many liberals and have asked them all the same question, “You detested that Bush spent so much money and raised our national debt, yet Obama is quadrupling this debt and has, in fact amassed more deficit spending than all other Presidents combined. Does this bother you?”

Every single time the answer has been, “No, it doesn’t bother me because he is spending money on things that need to be done.”

To which I state something along the lines of, “You mean like A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film, or $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees, or $160 million for “paid volunteers” at the Corporation for National and Community Service, or lastly, how about $850 million for Amtrak.”

This is usually where the conversation either turns ugly or ends, because when confronted with the truth, the average liberal cannot deal with it. It is hard to call these things investments when they are what they are – government waste and misuse of our tax dollars.

The liberals have been so successful the last few years because of a number of reasons. The liberal media is in their back pocket for one, and have been a very useful tool of the liberal. The liberal media has even adopted the language of the liberal. For example, it’s not raising taxes, it’s “investing.” It’s not abortion, it’s “choice.” They’re not illegal aliens, they are “undocumented immigrants.” For you see, to make their far left agenda more palatable to the average American, they have to – because it is so radical.

So I have compiled a partial list of liberal to English translation. It is in no particular order and of course only a partial list because it is constantly being changed and updated.

“The constitution is a living, breathing document.” = A fundamentally flawed document (Spoken by Obama in a radio interview in a 2001 Chicago Public Radio interview) that changes with political expediency

“Deficit Reduction” = Tax Hike

“Religious right” = Christians who are conservative

“Bipartisanship” = Arlen Specter

“Intolerance” = Opposed to liberal agenda

“Propaganda” = Conservative point of view

“Assault Weapons” = Virtually any firearm

“Cut” = Reduction in the rate of growth

“Pandering” = What Republicans do when supporting something liberals don’t like, usually applies to the NRA or religious right

“Profiteering” = Not losing money

“Managed competition” = Government takeover

“Overheated economy” = Prosperity

“Fully fund” = Blank check

“Diversity” = Multiple groups that adhere to the liberal agenda

“Special interest groups” = Non-liberal groups

“Fundamentalist” = Conservative

“Greed” = Profit motive

“Multiculturalism” = When placed in context to other countries, it means that America is to blame for all that is wrong in the world and that the USA is only one country among many, NOT the leading nation in the world

“Choice”= Abortion – not to be confused with the choice of personal liberty, that is not allowed under the liberal system

“Oversight” = Government

“Working Americans” = Only lower and middle class Americans

“Conduct a review” = Strategic delay

“Insurgents” = Terrorists

“Rigid Ideologue” = A conservative that stands up for his beliefs

“Compromise” = Only comes about when people agree with liberal agenda

“Affirmative Action” = Racial Preferences

“Lies” = “Policy Differences”

“Patriotism” = Paying more and more taxes is often equated with being a patriot

“Racism” = Open criticism of the Obama administration

“Closed-minded” = Does not agree with liberal agenda

“Right wing extremist” = The GOP

“Social responsibility” = Redistribution of wealth

“Corporate welfare” = Gross revenue minus taxes

“Corporate subsidy” = See ‘corporate welfare’

“Deserving poor” = People who vote for liberals

“Tax the rich” = Increase taxes on anyone making $250,000 a year or higher, $200,000 or, er, I mean $150,000 a year – *sigh* this number keeps getting lower

“Freedom Fighters” = Terrorists, Somalia Pirates, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, etc…

“Decriminalization” = Legalization

“Regulate” = Ban