As
the dust settles from the U.S. presidential election, multitudes of political
analysts and news commentators continue to scratch their heads wondering “what
went wrong?” The collective question
they’re asking of course is in reference to the candidate who was elected
President.
This
is the wrong question to ask, however.
What they should be asking is what led millions of (mostly) middle class
voters to rise up against the favored establishment candidate and voice their
disapproval with the incumbent party. As
is normally the case with anything relating to politics, the answer is to be
found in the realm of economics.
It’s
no secret that the main source of the middle class revolt is that class’s overall
lack of strong participation in the economic recovery of the last seven
years. Pundits have tended to put the
blame for this squarely on the shoulders of middle class workers. They never tire of repeating the mantra that
the middle class’s skill set is fast becoming obsolete due to the evolution of
technology and increased globalization.
This, though, has been true for at least the last three decades, so it
hardly qualifies as a prescient insight.
No,
the root of middle class revolt is far more contemporary in origin and is much
easier to isolate than the pundits think.
Let’s ask ourselves, in political terms, what is it that the middle
class demands more than anything else?
The political philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli
provided the answer to this rhetorical question centuries ago: the working
class want nothing more than to be left alone by the ruling class. In other words, they don’t want to be
excessively taxed.
Without
almost a single exception, any revolution in any country – be it political or
military – has begun when the people were over-taxed and their cost of living
became too high to support without undue strain. It isn’t as much a lack of skills which has
led to the middle class’s troubles as it is a drastic increase in their cost of
living, thanks largely to an extraordinary increase in taxes in recent
years. And the main source of their tax
trouble can be pointed to a single source, viz. the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a.
Obamacare).
Regardless
of what your opinion might be as to the efficacy of this legislation, the
undeniable fact remains that for millions in the middle class it has
effectively drained their earnings by inflicting a hefty a penalty on those who
don’t wish to purchase health insurance.
It enacts an even stiffer drain on consumers’ earnings by encouraging
the young and healthy to purchase costly medical insurance when they don’t
really need it.
As
Machiavelli himself wryly observed, history does tend to repeat and most
political rulers fail to learn from its precepts. One would think the Democrats would have
learned a valuable lesson about forcing healthcare upon an unwilling populace
in 1993, when the Clinton Healthcare Plan (a.k.a. Hillarycare) was first
proposed. It basically amounted to a
forced attempt at socialized healthcare in the U.S., and it was staunchly
opposed by millions of (mostly) middle class voters. A vigorous initiative against the plan
launched by the Christian Coalition effectively sealed the fate of the Clinton
Healthcare Plan, allowing the economy a narrow escape from a substantial tax
increase.
A
rudimentary lesson of Economics 101 is that unwarranted taxes always hinder
productivity to some degree or other, for taxes are a disincentive to
produce. The more taxes government
implements to remove money from the pockets of wage earners, the less incentive
they have to work hard and make even more money. Thus the velocity of money decreases, which
is the basis behind a sluggish economy (as we’ll see here).
The
Obamacare penalty must certainly rank as one of the biggest tax increases in
U.S. history. One simply cannot tax the
American middle class like that and expect to that economic growth will
continue unimpeded. This is a big reason
why the Democrats lost big in the latest election: it was the middle class’s
repudiation of the Obamacare tax more than perhaps any other factor.
Although
the economy has certainly made significant strides since the depths of the
Great Recession, there’s no denying that it hasn’t regained its luster from the
heady years prior to the crash.
Economists often lament the lack of money velocity in the U.S., which is
depicted in the following graph.
Velocity
is simply a measure of how quickly money is changing hands in the U.S. The above chart is a snapshot of the annual
percentage change in money velocity. The
picture speaks for itself and is a perfect reflection of the residual anxiety
still very much present within the middle class economy. Money simply isn’t changing hands fast enough
among typical wage earners and this has kept the economy from what could have
been a vigorous expansion.
The
blame for that can be put largely on the biggest tax increase in decades
previously mentioned. As long as the
Obamacare tax remains on the shoulders of non-healthcare consumers it will
continue to create a drag on the economy and prevent the kind of efflorescence
historically associated with the strongest rebounds.
Beyond
the impact that the Obamacare penalty laid upon millions in the middle class,
it has also had repercussions for investors and business owners. The drag created upon business by Obamacare
requirements has almost certainly contributed to the lack of forward momentum
in the stock market these last two years.
It can be seen most clearly in the NYSE Composite Index (NYA), below,
which is the broadest measure of the U.S. equity market.
The
breakout to new highs in several of the major indices, excluding the NYA, may
indeed prove to be an anticipatory move in response to expectations that the
Trump Administration will relieve business of its excessive tax and regulatory
burden. In order for the breakout to
give way to a continued boom, however, this expectation should become
reality.
Now
that Republicans control both chambers of Congress they have a chance to redeem
themselves from their lack of a concerted effort against the Obamacare
vote. Regardless of whether they support
the law remaining intact, to acknowledge the middle class constituents who
voted for them they can, and should, send an undeniable message of
support. By eliminating, or at least
significantly lowering, the penalty for not buying health insurance they will
have given the middle class the best possible gift they can give. In doing so they will be lifting a huge
hindrance to the economy and allow it to truly take off in 2017.
The
60-year economic cycle of inflation/deflation which bottom a couple of years
ago hasn’t had a chance to work its magic on the U.S. economy by lifting the
deflationary currents from the last two decades. The early years of the new 60-year cycle tend
to exert a benign inflationary impact by gradually lifting prices without
creating the problems associated with too much inflation. The up-phase of a new 60-year cycle also
tends to stimulate consumer spending and investment within the economy due to
the gradual increase of benign inflation.
Yet the cycle hasn’t been allowed to do its work thanks to the grievous
burden of taxation imposed by Obamacare.
If
this tax is reversed by the incoming Congress, it’s highly likely that we’ll
witness a magnificent flowering of the economy in the years that follow. While the economic recovery since 2009 can be
likened to foliar growth in a fruiting plant, the second and most important
phase of the recovery must involve flowering.
Only then can the plant bear its fruit.
To date there has been much leafy growth, yet little flowering. The stimulant required for this flowering is
the lifting of the excessive burdens placed upon it by the previous
caretakers.
No comments:
Post a Comment