Which Would You Prefer, Higher Taxes or Higher Inflation?
Which Would You Prefer, Higher Taxes or Higher Inflation?
Guess what folks? You’re getting both…and it’s not going to get better anytime soon!
But why is “keeping up with inflation” a goal at all? If there was no inflation, couldn’t we just spend our time finding companies to invest in that are going to return us a profit? Isn’t this what investing is all about?
There’s an old saying that goes, “ignorance is bliss.” From a theological standpoint, bliss means “the joy of heaven.” When it comes to the ignorance that Americans have in understanding money and inflation, I can’t really say that there is heavenly “joy,” but our government and the corporate owned media would have you think this is the case. In reality, the definition of ignorance is, you don’t know what you don’t know…yet one still has to “pay” for this lack of intellect through higher taxes and the hidden tax of inflation.
The saying, “ignorance is bliss,” actually comes from 17th century English poet, Thomas Grey who said; “Where ignorance is bliss, ‘Tis folly to be wise.’” The latter part of that saying is what I hope this post accomplishes in exposing what our government and the Federal Reserve are really doing to the economy and what the inevitable consequences are for you in planning for your future.
Even the Federal Reserve is in on the stock market action by artificially lowering interest rates to perk up the market. The resulting increase in the money supply means The Fed is causing more inflation. The Fed doesn’t even want you to see their monetary maneuvers any longer so they hide the M3 statistics (they don’t want you to know about credit expansion or how much money they are printing out of thin air), but there are still organizations that track these numbers.
They show that over the last few years M3 has risen about 40%. The Fed is inflating at an unbelievable rate! Remember, the definition of inflation is an increase in the money supply (don’t believe your college economic textbook definitions).
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the monetary value of all the finished goods and services produced within a country’s borders in a specific time period. GDP is usually calculated on an annual basis. It includes all of private and public consumption, government outlays, investments and exports less imports that occur within a defined territory. So in a nutshell, “GDP is commonly used as an indicator of the economic health of a country, as well as to gauge a country’s standard of living.” The important words in the above definition for us to concentrate on are “government outlay” or what the government spends.
So let’s see what the government actually says about future taxes via the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO projects that, under current law, receipts from individual income taxes will remain at 8.5 percent of GDP in 2008 and then climb to 10.9 percent in 2018, a gain of 2.4 percentage points.
1. U.S. National Debt: Now OVER $9.3 Trillion
Debt held by public is $5.56 trillion, about 37% of GDP
Most of this debt is owned by foreigners including China and Japan: who aren’t too happy about a falling dollar.
2. Budget Deficit for 2008: $410 billion, close to the record of 413 billion in 2004
3. U.S. Trade Deficit $711 (2007) Billion: 5.1% of GDP
5. Projected Federal Spending Over the Long Term: $59.1 trillion primarily for Social Security and Medicare (2008 cash on hand is about 6 trillion). This will end up at more than 30% of GDP as this CBO chart shows.
Or have they? Annual Real GDP Growth is down four straight years. Some define a recession as two consecutive quarters of lower GDP. What does 4 years in a row of lower GDP signify? Are we in the middle of something worse than a recession? A deck of cards propped up by the last ditch Federal Reserve intervention?
Are you hearing any of this from the corporate owned media? CNBC? Fox Business Channel? The Wall Street Journal? They’re still telling you to invest 75% of your money into the stock market! But what happens during a recession to the stock market? “Based on historical experience the stock market is likely to fall sharply by about 28% from peak to the trough according to RGE Monitor’s Nouriel Roubini. Or you can just go on believing everything is just fine like our Commander in Chief.
So what’s keeping this game going? You can thank the American Consumer who has an infatuation with debt! During the Greenspan years, it was the artificial lowering of interest rates that caused the increased housing equity for consumers to tap and spend and keep the economy going. What did this Fed induced spending create? The burst of the greatest real estate bubble in U.S. history and the largest sub-prime debacle to boot. Is the Fed still sticking its nose into the economy?
Today, the consumer is still spending according to the CBO; “Consumer spending on services, exports, and investment in business structures were major contributors to the 2.2 percent growth in real GDP in 2007.” How much longer can the consumer keep spending?
The consumer needs to take responsibility for their own actions….but again, “ignorance is bliss right?” The consumer trusts in their government, the Federal Reserve and the media to be in their best interest right?
The facts above may state otherwise.
The good news is, there are ways to profit, and I’ll discuss this in a future blog.

Comment by Mem on 29 February 2008:
Hey Doug, I am going to be the devils advocate here and present a contrary view. Not that I agree with the entirety of the argument but when you consider US household networth is in the low $50T mark what is $5.56T? Comparing one years worth GDP against total debt is a little out of perspective don’t you think? If its unfunded liabilities I know UK is in terrible shape and Europe even worse. I am enclosing a presentation from Arnold Van Den Berg and you will see the balance sheet for US household networth. See page 6. http://www.centman.com/PDF/2007/ClientUpdate11-10-07/SlidePresentation11-10-07.pdf
Take a look and see if that puts a different light on it.
Best regards, Mem
Comment by Doug Eberhardt on 29 February 2008:
Hi Mem,
I agree that numbers can be used to slant things towards one point of view. This was not my intention.
I could play devils advocate back at you in asking why is it that a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of lower GDP? We haven’t had two consecutive quarters of lower GDP for four years, yet we’ve had 4 consecutive years of lower GDP. The media never talks about this because of how a recession is defined. Who is behind this definition? Or a better question is who manipulated what the definition of recession has come to be known?
That said, lets take a look at the bigger picture of the 4 years mentioned in the Federal Reserve chart by Van Den Berg in your post….
In 2002, net worth was $38,830 and grew to $57,860 by 2007. This is a nice 49% gain and by any calculation looks pretty good!
Looking closer at the numbers, the growth was primarily fueled by higher prices in real estate from the Fed artificially lowering interest rates allowing the consumer to borrow from their equity and fuel the real estate market higher via speculation with their newfound wealth. As the consumer did this, you’ll see from the chart that mortgage debt also increased by about 35%.
In 2002, the U.S. dollar was trading at 120 and by 2007, the dollar was trading 34% lower. So a dollar in 2002 was worth 34% less in terms of purchasing power than a dollar in 2007. This also means that the 49% growth is reduced by 68% thus showing that real growth was only about 3% a year during this time-frame.
Now we are in 2008 and the dollar has fallen another 8%, real estate prices are declining and mortgage debt has increased. So the Federal Reserve chart that will come out this June and next June won’t be looking too pretty. Of course, as I mentioned in the blog, the Fed is doing all they can to keep the game going…and remember, George Bush says we’re not in a recession!
GDP is being hurt by the U.S. debt while individuals and other countries are trying to get out. The Fed is printing at historic rates adding to this debt resulting in increased inflation. The future unfunded liabilities will add to this and the result will be higher taxes.
If I have missed your point, please let me know.
Good hearing from you!
Doug Eberhardt
Comment by Mem on 1 March 2008:
Hi Doug,
As I said I do not agree with the Van Den Berg point in its entirety and you pretty much got it in one, essentially the purchasing power of the dollar is the primary problem with his argument. I note though the increase in $20T in networth was accounted by $8T in real estate and the rest was in own business $3T, equities $4T, pensions $4.5T. My conclusion is that US households will be in good shape if those investments in equities, pensions and own business was in the sectors that will benefit from inflation. Since debt will be inflated away the real value of debt will decline and if the additions in recent years is in the right asset classes the US consumer will do well. One thing strengthens your argument is that there is a good chance that the US consumer does not know what sectors to be in. Hence, I conclude by sharing one of my favourite notions which is truth is an illusive concept and there are no absolute answers hence we must remain open minded and flexible. We’ll see how it pans out, but I don’t think things are dire in the US vis a vis Europe. Excellent work with this site, my congratulations. Mem