It’s another record-high for the U.S. National Debt which today topped the $12-trillion mark. Divided evenly among the U.S. population, it amounts to $38,974.34 for every man, woman and child.

Technically, the debt hit the new high yesterday, but it was posted on the Treasury Department website just after 3:00 p.m. ET today. The exact calculation of the debt is a 16-digit tongue-twister and red-ink tsunami: $12,031,299,186,290.07

This latest milestone in the ever-rising journey of the National Debt comes less than eight months after it hit $11 trillion for the first time. The latest high-point is not unexpected, considering the federal deficit for the just-ended 2009 fiscal year hit an all-time high at $1.42-trillion – more than triple the previous year’s record high.

Much of the increase in the deficit and debt is attributed to government spending outpacing revenue – both exacerbated by the recession and the government response to it – including hundreds of billions in bailouts and stimulus spending and tax cuts along with decreased tax revenues due to rising unemployment.

In recent days, President Obama has spoken of the need to bring the rising deficit and debt under control.

“I intend to take serious steps to reduce America’s long-term deficit – because debt-driven growth cannot fuel America’s long-term prosperity,” he said in remarks prepared for delivery to the leader’s meeting last Sunday at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.

The National Debt has increased about $1.6 trillion on Mr. Obama’s watch, though less than $4.9 trillion run up during the presidency of George W. Bush.

Of course, Obama has only been in office ten months, not eight years.

Since Barack Obama took the Oath of Office, the national debt has increased from $ 10,626,877,048,913.08 to $ 12,031,299,186,290.07. That’s an increase of $ 1,404,422,137,376.99 over 302 days, or $ 4,650,404,428.40 per day, $ 193,766,851.18 per hour, $ 3,229,447.52 per minute, and $ 53,824.13 per second.

Anyone want to bet how long it will take to get to $ 13 trillion ?

My guess is August 15, 2010.

When Ludwig von Mises first arrived in the United States after escaping from Nazi Europe, and pretty much up until the present day, he was essentially ignored by the mainstream economics community in the United States. It was only through the assistance of American businessmen that he was able to get a job teaching at New York University, and, even then, the work he did had nothing to do with official university activities because he was, effectively, shunned for his uncompromising defense of the free-market.

Earlier this week in The Wall Street Journal, though, Mises is given credit for being one of the few economists in the 1920s to foresee the impending Great Depression:

Mises’s ideas on business cycles were spelled out in his 1912 tome “Theorie des Geldes und der Umlaufsmittel” (”The Theory of Money and Credit”). Not surprisingly few people noticed, as it was published only in German and wasn’t exactly a beach read at that.

Taking his cue from David Hume and David Ricardo, Mises explained how the banking system was endowed with the singular ability to expand credit and with it the money supply, and how this was magnified by government intervention. Left alone, interest rates would adjust such that only the amount of credit would be used as is voluntarily supplied and demanded. But when credit is force-fed beyond that (call it a credit gavage), grotesque things start to happen.

Government-imposed expansion of bank credit distorts our “time preferences,” or our desire for saving versus consumption. Government-imposed interest rates artificially below rates demanded by savers leads to increased borrowing and capital investment beyond what savers will provide. This causes temporarily higher employment, wages and consumption.

Ordinarily, any random spikes in credit would be quickly absorbed by the system—the pricing errors corrected, the half-baked investments liquidated, like a supple tree yielding to the wind and then returning. But when the government holds rates artificially low in order to feed ever higher capital investment in otherwise unsound, unsustainable businesses, it creates the conditions for a crash. Everyone looks smart for a while, but eventually the whole monstrosity collapses under its own weight through a credit contraction or, worse, a banking collapse.

The system is dramatically susceptible to errors, both on the policy side and on the entrepreneurial side. Government expansion of credit takes a system otherwise capable of adjustment and resilience and transforms it into one with tremendous cyclical volatility.

(…)

We all know what happened next. Pretty much right out of Mises’s script, overleveraged banks (including Kreditanstalt) collapsed, businesses collapsed, employment collapsed. The brittle tree snapped. Following Mises’s logic, was this a failure of capitalism, or a failure of hubris?

Mises’s solution follows logically from his warnings. You can’t fix what’s broken by breaking it yet again. Stop the credit gavage. Stop inflating. Don’t encourage consumption, but rather encourage saving and the repayment of debt. Let all the lame businesses fail—no bailouts. (You see where I’m going with this.) The distortions must be removed or else the precipice from which the system will inevitably fall will simply grow higher and higher.

That was Mises’ argument in The Theory Of Money And Credit, but he did so much more than that. In Socialism, first published in 1921, Mises laid out in detail the reasons why the centrally planned economy of nations like the USSR could never produce a rational economy and were doomed to failure. He was, of course, proven right in that regard as we learned only twenty years ago. Mises’ magnum opus is Human Action: A Treatise on Economics and while it’s not easy reading it is well worth consuming for even the amateur student of economics.

Here’s hoping people will start taking Mises’ lessons to heart before we make the same mistakes all over again.

And yet, there was budget director Peter Orszag rushing to a lunch with Chinese bureaucrats on a Monday in late July. To his surprise, when Orszag arrived at the site of the annual U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED), the Chinese didn’t dwell on the Wall Street meltdown or the global recession. The bureaucrats at his table mostly wanted to know about health care reform, which Orszag has helped shepherd. “They were intrigued by the most recent legislative developments,” Orszag says. “It was like, ‘You’re fresh from the field, what can you tell us?’?”

As it happens, health care is much on the minds of the Chinese these days. Over the last few years, as China has become the world’s largest purchaser of Treasury bonds, the government has grown increasingly sophisticated in its understanding of U.S. budget deficits. The issue has become all the more pressing in recent months, as the financial crisis and recession pushed the deficit to record levels. With nearly half of their $2 trillion in foreign currency reserves invested in U.S. bonds alone, the Chinese are understandably concerned about our creditworthiness. And this concern has brought them ineluctably to the issue of health care. “At some point, if you refuse to contain health care costs, you’ll go bankrupt,” says Andy Xie, a prominent Shanghai-based economist, formerly of Morgan Stanley. “It’s widely known among [Chinese] policymakers.” Xie himself wrote a much-read piece on the subject in 2007 for Caijing magazine–kind of the Chinese version of Fortune.

The Chinese, unfortunately for them, have worked their way into a suicide pact with America. They are simply too heavily invested here to see any serious problems with our economy, government, or monetary base. Had they not spent the last decade buying up enormous Treasury holdings, they could let us implode our economy and “fix” our debt/spending issues through debasing our currency, and then swoop in to buy assets on the cheap once we hit bottom. But that’s not on the agenda. If we take the low road, we’re towing them along for the ride.

Obama says he won’t accept a bill that adds to the deficit. I don’t believe him, since I’ve already seen him fail to live up to his promises on taxes and legislative transparency. Even worse, though, he’s got the folks who plan to finance that deficit worried. And the last group you want to scare are the ones you’re trying to get to lend you money.

Hat Tip: Ezra Klein

This only adds to my worries about the Weekend at Bernie’s aspects of this recovery (and kudos to “Hedge fund guy” who first used the analogy). The Japanese spent much of the 1990s propping up their economy and sticking sunglasses on its face; every time they let go, it slumped again.

The discussion is the extent to which the economy will falter when government stops throwing money at the problem. It’s an issue that I doubt we’ll need to worry about, though, as our government has shown no signs of stopping.

There have been 11 recessions since the Great Depression. And we’re nowhere close to being in the 12th one now. This isn’t just a matter of opinion. Words — even words as seemingly subjective as “recession” — have meaning.

…

Whatever the political outcome this year, hopefully this will prove to be yet another instance of that iron law of economics and markets: The sentiment of the majority is always wrong at key turning points. And the majority is plenty pessimistic right now. That suggests that we’re on the brink not of recession, but of accelerating prosperity.

Yes, folks, that was Sep 14, 2008!

He goes on to talk about how employment, industrial production, and the housing market really aren’t that bad and not in for anything severe.

I’m all for optimism. Any chance I can get some of whatever Luskin was smokin’?

I think Barry Ritholtz at The Big Picture puts it best:

If you had a time machine, knew the future, and purposefully tried to write something where every word was literally wrong, you could not have done a better job.

Go read the whole thing. Then decide whether you can take the MSM’s announcement of green shoots seriously.

“Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren, America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.”

— Senator Barack Obama (Ill), 2006

We need to raised the debt ceiling above $ 12 Trillion.

— President Barack Obama, 2009.

Now they’ve run out of money. And in a complete and utter coincidence, which nobody could possibly have predicted, new housing starts are drying up!

California Building Industry Association says the state’s homebuilders hit the brakes on starting new housing after the state’s $10,000 tax credit for buyers of new homes ended in early July. The state incentive had ignited a modest building and buying burst when it started in March.

According to July stats from the Construction Industry Research Board:

1. Builders pulled permits for 3,011 total California housing units in July, down 14 percent from June.
2. 2,045 California single-family permits, down 29% from June — that was the busiest month since July 2008.
3. In Orange County, 62 homes were permitted in July — down 43% from June and off 69% from a year ago.

Says CBIA’s president, Robert Rivinius: “Our homebuilders reported a significant drop in traffic last month, largely due to the state closing the window on the homebuyer tax credit. Activity stopped as quickly as it started, which is bad news for housing and the broader economy.”

The recovery will be solid when economic gains are due to real fundamental improvement in the economy. Relying on the effects of government largesse as a sign of rebound, though, is not especially trustworthy.

Many auto industry analysts and dealers expect sales volumes to fall now that the program is over. They worry that many people who took advantage of the program were merely accelerating purchases they would have made later in the year.

If that’s true, the premature sales could hurt automakers, which increased production in the third quarter to replenish clunker-depleted inventories that had already grown low because of factory shutdowns over the summer.

Cash for Clunkers is essentially an inflationary policy. This is a policy well described by Adam Smith Milton Friedman, with the exact same consequence:

In a dynamic world demands are always shifting, some prices going up, some going down. The general signal of increasing demand will be confused with the specific signals reflecting changes in relative demands. That is why the initial side of faster monetary growth is an appearance of prosperity and greater employment. But sooner or later the signal will get through.

As it does, workers, manufacturers, retailers will discover that they have been fooled. They reacted to higher demand for the small number of things they sell in the mistaken belief that the higher demand was special to them and hence would not much affect the prices of the many things they buy.

The government has arbitrarily and falsely increased demand for a specific good (new cars). They’ve done so by throwing money at it (a locally inflationary policy) and the automakers are ramping up production in response to what they THINK is a more stable recovery. But they may soon find, as Adam Smith Friedman predicted, that they have been fooled.

Here’s what Obama had to say:

Ben approached a financial system on the verge of collapse with calm and wisdom; with bold action and outside-the-box thinking that has helped put the brakes on our economic freefall

I thought it might be useful to take a look at some highlights of this Solon, this central – planner whom George Bush put in charge of the money supply:

Of course, as usual, Obama is dead wrong: the Federal Reserve’s actions have actually prolonged the downturn, made it worse, and have laid the foundations for an even bigger crash down the road.

In the days before the election, I told many of my fellow Massachusetts residents that Obama was not so much a break from George Bush as a continuation of his worst policies. I am sorry to say that he has been proving me right since. And this is yet another nail in the coffin of an administration that is showing itself to be even more incompetent than the Bush presidency.

H/T: Club For Growth

The government’s “cash for clunkers” program, aimed at boosting stagnant auto sales, is almost out of money, putting its future in question, according to sources familiar with the effort.

Passed by Congress in late June to help the flagging U.S. auto industry and launched just a week ago, the $1 billion program gives vouchers worth up to $4,500 to consumers who trade in gas-guzzling cars for more fuel-efficient models. The highly publicized effort was scheduled to run until Nov. 1, or until money ran out. It was not expected to run out of cash so quickly.

The effort, formally known as the Car Allowance Rebate System, or CARS, appeared headed for a temporary shutdown at midnight Thursday. Federal transportation officials became increasingly concerned that the program’s popularity with consumers could drain its budget by week’s end, according to sources familiar with the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

It’s pretty to figure out why this happened once you take a look at how the program worked:

Under the program, consumers get a voucher for up to $4,500 — depending on the model and average fuel economy of their car or truck — if they buy a new car or truck that gets better gas mileage than the one that was scrapped. The payoff grows depending on the difference in the fuel efficiencies of the old and new cars.

Basically, if you had an older car (and it’s typically older cars that get lower gas mileage) the Federal Government was subsidizing your trade-in if you purchased a new vehicle. For someone who’s been driving, say, a late 90s care into the ground, it was a pretty good deal — instead of waiting another year or two, you could have a new car now, and the government would pay for a good party of it. Frankly, only a government bureaucrat or a politician would be surprised that it would garner a lot interest.

The fact that the government apparently completely misjudged how popular the program is should be a warning to those who would continue to put more and more power into the hands of the state. If they can’t accurately estimate how many people would respond to a program like this, and can’t even tell us whether there’s any money left in the program as of today, then how are they going to be able to run one of the largest sectors of the economy ?

Now that’s it’s running out of money, of course, people are already calling for more:

One Michigan Republican, Congresswoman Candice Miller, has alreayd come out in favor of extending the program, saying in a statement that “There can be no doubt that the Cash for Clunkers program is a complete success given the fact that the entire $1 billion allocated to the program was expended in less than a week.”

She called the program “simply the most stimulative $1 billion the federal government has spent during the entire economic downturn.”

It’s worth asking, though, whether this program is really accomplishing anything, and whether it’s doing more harm than good.

Sure, the program has stimulated car sales, but it’s pretty clear that all that it’s really done is give drivers the incentive to purchase a new car now, rather than purchasing it in the future. That’s not economic stimulation, it’s a time-shifted purchase, and, to the extent that the program has given people the incentive to purchase cars that they otherwise could not afford, it’s helping to create an auto sales/credit bubble not all that different from the real estate bubble that got us into our current mess. However long the CARS program lasts, it will, in the end, be merely a brief up-tick in an otherwise dismal auto-market.

What’s wrong with “Cash for Clunkers” isn’t that they ran out of money — although that certainly should cause people to doubt the government’s ability to make economic forecasts of any kind — but that it’s more of the same nonsense we’ve been doing for years.

Holman Jenkins asks “Does Obama Want to Own the Airlines?” (Business World, July 8). I am sure he does not. Rather than own them, the president and his congressional allies want to control the airlines — a crucial difference as ownership implies taking responsibility.

As Mr. Jenkins notes, the Justice Department’s belated intervention against Continental’s efforts to join the Star Alliance appears aimed at extorting concessions for the Democrats’ union allies. That is not the action of an owner of airline assets but of someone determined to redistribute wealth from airline passengers and shareholders to favored special interests.

One of the many benefits of free markets is that the people who own something are the ones who experience the benefits or losses accruing from their use of it. When considering how some property is going to be used, an owner and non-owner may have very strong opinions. The non-owner, who has less to lose, will be less careful and prudent in their decisionmaking. Moreover, often the non-owner will gain more from the misuse of the item than from its prudent use.

One does not have to look to hard to see this phenomenon in action. The attempt by GM to close dealerships, and thus reduce its losses was overridden by Congressmen interested in using GM’s wealth to buy votes by keeping the dealerships open. And that is one example of literally millions of instances that take place every year from all levels of government.

Obama, leading democrats and some very influential economists have repeatedly expressed the idea that increased government control of the medical industry would reduce costs without sacrificing quality. In their vision selfless government officials will ensure that people receive high quality treatment regardless of the cost, while the market power of government as a customer will ensure that costs will stay low. Against this charming vision stands a great body of evidence from public choice theory; government officials – or their private counterparts in the private-public partnerships in vogue today – will be able to exert control without any consequences. Just as medicare and medicaid administrators proved willing to authorize higher and higher treatment prices – to the point where it threatens the budget of the federal and nearly every state government – the administrators of any new government program will behave in similar uneconomic ways.

Control without responsibility is a very bad idea.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson testified on Thursday that he pressured Bank of America Corp. last year to go through with its plans to buy Merrill Lynch but didn’t tell the bank’s chief to hide potential losses from shareholders.

Paulson acknowledged that he warned the bank’s CEO, Kenneth Lewis, that Lewis could lose his job if he dropped the deal. Paulson also said he pledged government aid to the bank but declined to put that promise in writing because the details would have been vague and would have to be disclosed publicly by the Treasury Department.

…

In testimony to the committee, Paulson said he told Lewis last year that reneging on his promise to purchase Merrill Lynch would show a “colossal lack of judgment.”

Paulson said that “under such circumstances,” the Federal Reserve would be justified in removing management at the bank.

“By referring to the Federal Reserve’s supervisory powers, I intended to deliver a strong message reinforcing the view that had been consistently expressed by the Federal Reserve, as Bank of America’s regulator, and shared by the Treasury, that it would be unthinkable for Bank of America to take this destructive action for which there was no reasonable legal basis and which would show a lack of judgment,” Paulson said.

Paulson said he believed his remarks to Lewis were “appropriate.”

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has denied threatening to oust Lewis and said he never told anyone else to, either. But another Fed official suggested otherwise in an e-mail obtained by House investigators.

Jeffrey Lacker, president of the Richmond Federal Reserve Bank, said in a December 2008 e-mail that Bernanke had planned to make “even more clear” that if Bank of America backed out on the deal, “management is gone.”

Paulson said Bernanke never asked him to relay the message. But, he added, he believed he was expressing the Fed’s opinion that dropping the deal “would raise serious questions about the competence and judgment of Bank of America’s management and board.”

I’ve previously covered this type of activity by Paulson & Bernanke here and here.

The below letter should be read as a potential template for readers to use when writing to your own Senators and Congressmen. However, there are two caveats to this. First, there are a few points here about California, as we have had some special challenges throughout the tech crunch and the housing collapse. Second, the tone of the letters is geared towards Democrats. If you’re sending this to Republicans, it would make sense to change the language in certain areas.

Either way, I wanted to provide potential talking points for readers who want to contact their Senators and get this ball moving.

July 9, 2009

Dear Senator XXXXX,

Senate bill S.604, a bill to require the Comptroller General of the US to audit the Federal Reserve, is currently under review with the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. I am writing to urge your support for this bill.

California has been the epicenter of two asset bubbles over the last two decades: the high tech bubble and the housing bubble. Both brought the illusion of wealth to our state, and both caused much pain to our residents and our state government when they collapsed. There are many causes of asset bubbles, but chief among them are the loose monetary policies of the Federal Reserve. These policies cause malinvestment and excessive speculation, the hallmark of any bubble.

The Federal Reserve policies of Alan Greenspan and continued by Ben Bernanke are placing the financial system of the United States in jeopardy. These policies are largely undertaken without Congressional or Federal oversight, and benefit the interests of our financial sector at the expense of our citizens.

Most recently, the Fed has expanded their balance sheet to $2T buying securities, all the while engaging in a policy of “quantitative easing”, which is the euphemistic term for “printing money”. These policies are unprecedented in American history, and their long-term effects may be far worse than the problems they’re expected to address today.

S. 604’s sister bill in the House (H.R. 1207) has widespread bipartisan support, and over 250 cosponsors – including 25 from California. S. 604 is rapidly gaining sponsorship in the senate, with three additional cosponsors added in the last several days to a (now) total of 7 sponsors.

The Federal Reserve is adopting policies that affect every American at the core of their economic life – the value of our dollars and the value of our homes. They are making these decisions without meaningful Congressional oversight and without allowing anyone to “check the books”.

Congress has a duty to Americans to ensure that the Federal Reserve is acting in our interests, and the first step to doing so is to understand what they’ve already done. An audit is necessary. I hope that I’ve convinced you to support and possibly cosponsor S.604.

Sincerely,
Brad Warbiany

(Followed by contact info)

Give it a shot. I prefer to fax things to elected officials, as I believe there to be a more definitive tactical feel to actual paper. When they see that it’s printed out and faxed, I think it carries a little bit more significance than an email. I also emailed this to both of them, just in case their staffers are more likely to read one than the other.