The number one problem of all public debate about politics and economics is the failure to name the state. If this would change, so would public opinion.
There is no shortage of examples. People talk about health care for all, solving climate change, providing security in old age, universal educational access, boosting wages, ending discrimination, and you can add to the list without end.
That’s one side.
The other speaks of national identity, protecting jobs, making us more moral, forming cultural cohesion, providing security against the foreign enemy, and so on.
Obfuscation
All of this, no matter how fancy the language, is obfuscation. What all of this really means is: put the state in charge. What’s strange is the unwillingness to say it outright. This is for a reason. The plans the politicians have for our lives would come across as far less compelling if they admitted the following brutal truth.
There really are only two ways to allocate goods and services in society: the markets (which rely on individual choice) and the state (which runs on compulsion). No one has ever found a third way. You can mix the two — some markets and some state-run operations — but there always is and always will be a toggling between the two. If you replace markets, the result will be more force via the state, which means bureaucratic administration and rule by force. If you reduce the role of the state, you rely more on markets. This is the logic of political choice, and there is no escaping it.
The above paragraph is the great truth of political economy. I’ve never seen any evidence to dispute it. And yet it is the great unsayable truth. Seasons of political rhetoric fly by with no frank discussion of what precisely this or that proposal would require of the state and how that will affect our lives, much less a serious analysis of the risks of making a problem worse by replacing market forces.
Diversity in Markets
To be sure, when I say markets, I don’t only mean the money-exchange economy in which prices and accounting govern choices. Markets include philanthropy, familial organization, houses of religion, volunteering to work without pay, and everything else in the social order that relies on human volition. There are infinite varieties in the way markets instantiate themselves in human lives. The variations are contingent on culture, norms, traditions, and so on. There can be more or less voluntary ways the market expresses itself just like there can be more or less coercive forms of statism.
But let us not deny that the choice is real. If this is correct, it is strange how much people complain about markets and how little the only alternative is discussed, studied, evaluated, and finally judged. This is because the statist means will also come up short.
Depending on the state to deliver some social good depends on using the threat of violence to compel people to do what they otherwise would not choose to do. There is also no clean path to doing so; the bureaucracy always ends up as the everyday mediator between the individual and the point of a gun.
You Don’t Like Government
The reason we hear so little frank talk on this subject is that hardly anyone has ever really enjoyed their dealings with a state bureaucracy when it is imposed upon them. You think that the local DMV experience is subpar; wait until you face your first federal audit or FBI investigation, or seek benefits from some agency. Or perhaps you have a relative who is mixed up in the criminal-justice system. Whatever it is, no experience in the private sector can compare.
It means unpredictable wait times. You aren’t really a customer; you are a bother — at best. Objecting to any aspect of the service is mostly pointless. Step out of line and you are in trouble. You are a subject, and the sullen faces and dreary postures of your fellow citizens in line underscores the point.
The truth is that no one relishes dealing with the government at any level. Where would you rather be: the driver’s license bureau or McDonald’s? The school district office or a local bar? A military base or a car plant? The courthouse or the shopping mall? Want to deal with a government cop or a private security guard?
There’s a pattern here. It’s a hugely important one. The relationship between the individual and the state, vs. the same individual and the market, is fundamentally different. We all know this intuitively.
I personally know no one who relishes dealing with government. And yet I know plenty of people who support letting government take over ever more aspects of our lives, especially when they don’t understand that their favorite program means exactly that.
How can we make sense of this paradox? Well, most expansions of government power are pushed without overt public approval, with plenty of deception, and with the unfair advantage that government itself has in the political process. In other words, it is not necessary that people actively favor government expansion for government to continue its imperial march through society. It only requires a certain level of passive compliance.
The TSA
The creation of the Department of Homeland Security — and the TSA as the centerpiece — is a great example. I was talking with Edward Lopez, economics professor at Western Carolina University, about how this came about. We were both around at the time and we compared notes.
How did it happen? Government took advantage of public fear and panic following 9-11 to impose what government had always wanted. There was private lobbying too: plenty of contractors have gotten rich, so their lobbying has paid off. The airlines might have played a role too in offloading security liabilities.
Anyone who knew the nature of government could have predicted the results. There have been exploding costs. Individual rights have been violated. Our privacy and constitutional protections have been shredded. Inefficiencies have ballooned. And what for? No credible terrorist threats have really been stopped.
Somehow, at the time this gigantic government apparatus was created, many people imagined that this time would be different, that government would magically do a better job at securing us than the private sector could or would do. Of course this time is never actually different. The bureaucracy gets created, and then people shake their fists at it. But, by then, it is actually too late.
A bureaucracy created tends not to go away. It gets worse even as it expands and takes on a life of its own. The abuses, wastes, and inefficiencies mount, and no one can do anything about it.
What I conclude from this is that the average person lives with a complete mental disconnect when it comes to government. We don’t like dealing with it. We know the truth in our hearts. And yet we keep suspending our incredulity on the belief that government must be doing some wonderful thing somewhere even if we don’t experience it ourselves.
Government promises always fall short. Even worse, government wrecks what it touches. Wars increase violence. Moral crusades produce opposite results. Cultural planning backfires. Welfare programs break and fail to serve. Monetary policy from the Fed yields massive financial distortions. Government efforts to protect industry lead to inefficiency, shutdowns, and stagnation. Government security makes us less secure and subjects us to scary regiments of spooks and thugs.
In other areas of life, we are seeing the rise of massive innovation in the private sector that shows the failure of government. Large companies are generating their own power. Global digital money is making new inroads. Local zoning laws and taxi monopolies are being strained by private initiative. And the daily excitement about private communication systems is breaking down the capacity of political elites to control the conversation.
The tendency toward loss of political control has inspired new, more extreme, and more obscurantist forms of selling state control to us. As the dynamics of public vs. private continue to shift, we can look forward to ever more obfuscation about the reality of displacing market forces. But once you see what’s going on, you can’t unsee it. The most effective path toward helping others to see is simple: name the state.
The bitter truth about most public policies being sold by the political class is that they give them more power to control our lives. If you favor some of these policies, be honest with the rest of us about what you mean, so that we can make more clear-headed judgments about the kind of society we want to live in.
December Business Conditions Monthly


AIER’s Leading Indicators index inches higher while the Roughly Coincident index and Lagging index fall.
AIER’s Business Cycle Conditions Leading Indicators index increased slightly in November, remaining modestly above neutral at 58. The Roughly Coincident Indicators index fell 17 points to 75 from 92 while the Lagging Indicators index fell nine points to 58 after posting 67 for three consecutive months (see chart).
The always-important holiday spending season is well underway and while early indications are for a strong selling period, the early indicators are not always indicative of the final results. Nevertheless, positive early signs are a welcome development given the importance of consumers to the economy, and holiday sales to most businesses. Other areas of the economy continue to post mixed results, suggesting the economy remains heavily dependent on consumer spending and therefore more vulnerable than usual to the whims of consumers.
Politics (impeachment proceedings and upcoming elections) and policy (trade policy, monetary policy, immigration policy and fiscal policy) have the potential to undermine consumer and business confidence. Overall, the economy continues to expand but at a slow pace and remains vulnerable to continued erratic policies and extreme partisanship.
Leading indicators index rises slightly in November
The AIER Leading Indicators index posted a small gain in November but remains close to neutral, supporting a cautious outlook.
The AIER Leading Indicators index rose 4 points to 58 in November. The index has been range bound between 25 and 75 for 12 consecutive months. The extended period of close-to-neutral results are consistent with the overall mixed performance of the various sectors of the economy. The general message is continued economic expansion albeit at a slow(ing?) pace and with a heightened degree of uncertainty.
The small change in the Leading Indicators Index was the result of just one change among the 12 indicators. Initial claims for unemployment insurance improved from a neutral trend in the previous month to a positive trend in the latest month. This indicator had been in a favorable trend prior to the drop to neutral. As discussed last month, initial claims for unemployment insurance is a bound indicator, meaning it cannot go below zero and in practical terms is about as low as can be expected. Therefore, it’s not surprising to see the indicator move to a flat trend. The improvement to a favorable trend in the most recent month helped boost the overall leading indicators index but as initial claims fluctuate near its natural lower bound, the indicator is likely to flip-flop between favorable and neutral. A move to an unfavorable trend would be a more significant development.
Among the 12 indicators, seven indicators had positive trends in November with 5 trending lower and none registering a neutral result. In addition to initial claims, positive trends were seen in real retail sales and food services, real new orders for consumer goods, housing permits, total heavy-truck unit sales, real stock prices, and the 10-year–1-year Treasury yield spread.
Unfavorable trends were seen in debit balances in customers’ margin accounts, new orders for core capital goods, the ratio of manufacturing and trade sales to inventory, the University of Michigan index of consumer expectations, and the average workweek in manufacturing.
Overall, the Leading Indicators index remains modestly above 50, indicating continued expansion is likely. However, the fluctuation around the neutral level over the past 12 months combined with the other mixed economic data and erratic policy suggest a high degree of caution remains warranted.
The roughly coincident indicators index fell to 75 in November from 92 in October. As expected, the industrial production indicator, which had improved from a negative trend to a neutral trend in the prior month, returned to a negative trend in the latest month. Manufacturing-related data continue to suggest a very difficult environment for the sector. In addition to the industrial production indicator, the consumer confidence indicator weakened from a positive trend to a neutral trend in the latest month. As discussed above, consumer spending remains a critical source of growth. Deterioration in consumer confidence is a worrying development. Overall, there were four roughly coincident indicators trending higher in November, one trending lower, and one neutral.
AIER’s Lagging Indicators index also declined in the latest month, dropping to 58 following three consecutive months at 67. The November result was the lowest reading since July. Among the six lagging indicators, three indicators are trending higher, two are trending lower, and one was neutral.
Consumer spending increasing but the pace is erratic
Following a moderate gain in the third quarter, early indicators for fourth-quarter consumer spending are mixed
The revised estimates for third-quarter real gross domestic product shows output rose at a 2.1 percent annualized pace versus a 2.0 percent pace in the second quarter. Consumer spending decelerated in the third quarter, rising at a moderate 2.9 percent pace compared to a 4.6 percent growth rate in the second quarter. The deceleration was broad-based across the major segments of consumer spending, with durable-goods spending rising 8.3 percent versus 13.0 percent in the second quarter, nondurable-goods spending up 4.3 percent versus 6.5 percent, and services gaining 1.7 percent versus 2.8 percent. Consumer spending contributed 2.0 percentage points to the 1.9 percent real GDP growth rate versus 3.0 percentage points in the second quarter.
October retail sales rise modestly…
The fourth quarter may have gotten off to a moderate start as retail sales and food services spending rose 0.3 percent in October following a 0.3 percent decline in September. Over the past year, total retail sales and food services were up 3.1 percent through October, the slowest pace since February.
Excluding the volatile auto and energy categories, core retail sales and food services were up 0.1 percent in October after a fall of 0.1 percent in September. Core retail sales had posted six straight monthly gains through August before declining in September. Over the last three months, core retail sales are up at just a 1.5 percent annualized rate, the slowest since February.
…though light-vehicle sales for first two months trail the third quarter…
Sales of light vehicles totaled 17.21 million at an annual rate in November, up from a 16.5 million pace in October. For the second quarter, unit light-vehicle sales averaged 17.0 million, ahead of the 16.8 million average for the first two months of the fourth quarter, suggesting vehicle sales may be a bit of a drag on overall consumer spending in the final quarter.
…However, Redbook weekly sales estimates suggest a strong holiday gain.
The Johnson Redbook weekly same-store sales index jumped to a 7.9 percent gain from a year ago for the week ended November 29. That is the third-highest result of the current economic expansion, trailing only the 9.3 percent gain recorded for the week of December 28, 2018 and the 8.9 percent rise for the week ended January 4, 2019. Other shopping tracking services have been generally optimistic about the start of the holiday selling season as well.
While these are welcome signs, the early results are not always indicative of the final tally. Shoppers can change the timing of purchases – spending heavily early but then slowing sharply, especially given that there is a shorter shopping period between Thanksgiving and Christmas this year. It’s also possible that consumers maintain or increase spending throughout the period.
Consumer attitudes holding at favorable levels
Consumer attitudes, measured by The Conference Board and the University of Michigan suggest consumers feel pretty good overall. Views on the current environment as well as expectations for the future remain relatively optimistic by historical comparison. While the various measures have fluctuated over the past two years, the levels of the measures of consumer attitudes are broadly trending sideways at a high level.
Various surveys note that the strong labor market is one of the key supports for the positive outlook and that spending is likely to remain solid. Surveys also note the sharp partisan differences among respondents and suggest that political events can have a significant impact in the future. The continued strength of the labor market and outside influences such as the impeachment proceedings and the 2020 presidential election cycle may be critical factors for consumer spending next year.
Trade deficit improving as imports fall more than exports
The U.S. trade deficit shrank to $47.2 billion in October, the lowest since March 2018. On a three-month average basis, the deficit totaled $50.6 billion, the lowest since July 2018. The improvement is a result of a smaller drop in exports relative to imports. Total imports dropped to $254.3 billion in October, down from $258.7 billion in September and $266.8 billion in October 2018, a 4.7 percent decline from a year ago. Total exports were $207.1 billion in October versus $207.6 in September and $210.1 billion in October 2018, a drop 1.4 percent.
Erratic trade policy including on-again, off-again trade negotiations and on-again, off-again tariffs can disrupt supply chains for businesses and alter buying plans for consumers. The elevated degree of uncertainty has the potential to become a significant drag on economic growth.
Federal Reserve balance sheet is growing again
Despite the end of quantitative easing, the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet has started to expand again. As of Wednesday December 4, total assets were $4,066 billion, up from $3,760 billion as of August 29, an increase of $306 billion or an 8.1 percent jump. About $180 billion of the increase is due to additional U.S. Treasury securities held outright. Repurchase agreements have also surged in recent months, totaling more than $200 billion. Holdings of mortgage-backed securities, the other major asset acquired during the implementation of quantitative easing programs, continue to fall.
The changes may be related to normal operations of the Fed and the banking system. While the Fed has been slowly shrinking its assets acquired during and after the financial crisis, the current methods of implementing monetary policy require the Fed to maintain a sizable quantity of assets. To that end, the Fed may be attempting to “right-size” its balance sheet.










Related Articles – Business Conditions Monthly
Initial Claims Rose Sharply but the Labor Market Remains Tight


Initial claims for unemployment insurance jumped to 252,000 for the week ended December 7 versus 203,000 in the prior week (see chart). The latest reading is the highest result since September 30, 2017. The four-week average rose to 224,000 from 217,750 in the prior week.
Weekly initial claims data tend to be quite volatile, especially around the holidays. Despite the surge in the latest weekly data, claims overall remain at historically low levels, hovering near the lowest levels since the late 1960s. The four-week average has been trending essentially flat since the beginning of 2018 and is also close to five-decade lows.
Measured as a percentage of employment (employment is much larger now than in the 1960s and early 1970s), initial claims are near record lows, well below the percentage seen in the 1960s and 1970s (see chart).
Furthermore, the latest employment report showed private-sector nonfarm payrolls added 254,000 in November following a gain of 163,000 in October and 183,000 in September. Over the past year, private payrolls have added 2.0 million workers or an average of 170,000 per month, a very solid pace of increase but below the 2018 average of 215,000 new private-sector employees per month. As of the end of September, there were approximately 6.3 million private-sector job openings, resulting in an openings rate of 4.7 percent. The unemployment rate in November was just 3.5 percent, matching a 50-year low.
Overall, while claims jumped in the latest week, the labor market remains tight. Mixed data on other sectors of the economy combined with nearly-neutral readings from the AIER Leading Indicators Index suggest continued economic growth but caution is warranted.