Daydream Believers Confront Nightmare Reality That Mr. Stimulus, He Dead
As Tim Cavanaugh pointed out last night in a great post about stimulus rain-dancers, "The argument for Keynesian spending has been defeated in the court of your own two eyes. That will take some re-adjustment for believers." Perhaps slowing that re-adjustment process is the fact that the journalistic establishment often portrays Keynesian theory as an immutable law of nature, called into question only by the insane and corrupt. Take, for instance, this article in the Business section of today's New York Times, under the headline "Budget Cuts Raise Doubt on Course of Recovery." Here's how it begins:
The budget deal struck last week amounts to a bet by the Obama administration that the loss of $38 billion in federal spending will not be the straw that breaks the back of a fragile economic recovery.
Economic conditions can determine the outcome of elections, and growth remains tepid and tentative just 18 months before voters decide if the president gets a second term.
The proposed federal spending cuts, which were decided late Friday, do not amount to much by themselves, about 0.25 percent of annual domestic activity. But they join a growing list of minor problems impeding growth, economists said,
I'm actually surprised that the article goes on to acknowledge the existence of people who disagree with the notion that government spending boosts growth.
Read how "It Can Happen Here," three case studies of government cuts leading to growth in Canada, New Zealand, and these United States, from our November 3D issue on How to Slash Government. Then just start scrolling through the archive of our economics columnist, Veronique de Rugy.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The argument for Keynesian spending has been defeated in the court of your own two eyes. That will take some re-adjustment for believers.
No way. Just imagine how bad it would have been without the Keynesian spending. The living would have envied the dead.
course a significant portion of the stimulus was comprised of tax cuts.
General Electric likes this.
Re: OO,
Stealing less is merely a "stimulus" for the Statist fuck.
upshot is if one does NOT count tax cuts as stimulus, then the stimulus package was much, MUCH smaller than the wingnut agiprop would have it.
which means the spending portion of the package was even a BIGGER bust than imagined by the American people.
The new conventional wisdom: okay, the stimulus did do something, we got some benefit from the tax cuts, the spending was a HUGE bust, however, a net negative. I can live with that.
...That Mr. Stimulus, He Dead
How cute! You hired Juanita to write the article 🙂
Joseph Conrad. It's based on a line from Heart of Darkness.
Do you think it really didn't know?
Dude. Do you really think rectal has ever read a book?
There's something in our world that makes men lose their heads- they couldn't be fair if they tried. In our courts, when it's a white man's word against a woman's word, the man always wins. They're ugly, but these are the facts of life
"...by watching her I began to think there was some skill involved in being a girl."
Keep practicing, rectal.
CN, YOU ARE NO FUN!
At least I snared Epi:-)
Rectal doesn't read. She listens to audiobooks.
lol, imbecile
epi doesn't read or listen to audiobooks!
Wait epi, Stan Lee just emailed me that he is going to put To Kill a Mockingbird in comic book form, and the bonus is the ink will be made of drugs.
He thought there may be a chance you would read a word or two while you're licking pages
I can read that book over and over... to think English wasn't even his first language.
That's funny, because I was thinking the same thing when I posted that excerpt. Conrad was, of course, originally from Poland, and he didn't speak English until he was an adult. Guess he had a friggin' awesome teacher.
"Oh but I will wring your heart yet!" Mr. Kurtz was a great man, and reading the book in AP Lit, to quote the Russian, expanded my mind.
Of course the revisionist fucks like Achebe have called it the most racist book ever written. It's a shame how not even great literature is safe from such retarded PC thinking.
I agree wholeheartedly.
EOM
I'm actually surprised that the article goes on to acknowledge the existence of people who disagree with the notion that government spending boosts growth.
Maybe it's just low expectations, but the article doesn't seem to me to do a bad job laying out the opposing viewpoint (in the simplistic framework of three paragraphs).
What's sad is that they don't make any effort to point out the cuts are relatively small and meaningless, not the wholesale gutting of federal programs as had been suggested during negotiations.
What's sad is that they don't make any effort to point out the cuts are relatively small and meaningless
They're cutting High Speed rail!
The collapse of civilization is upon us. We're DOOOOOOOOMED!
You're right, Keyensianism is not the way forward.
The wave of the future is authoritarian state capitalism--the system they have in places like Singapore and China.
Odd that the wave of the future is only able to succeed by producing plastic shit for those in freer societies.
You're way behind the times.
Research and development is now moving from America to China in droves, because their government is actually making investments for the future instead of arguing about abortion and gay marriage.
Stealing patents and blueprints from Western corporations doesn't count as research and development.
THE CHINKS ARE TAKING UR JERBS!!!
Yeah, more Lin Zhao style masks for the population.
For everyone one Apple job in California, there are NINE in Shanghai. And that's white collar jobs.
Made up facts are made up.
My theory is that The Truth is trying to drum up business for his little toy store in the South China Mall.
How much for the God-Jesus robot, Truth?
Made up facts are made up.
Brett, you are arguing the wrong point.
Yes I am as sure as you are that Teh Truffy pulled those numbers right out of his ass.
But if those numbers were in fact true they would would not support his position that free trade is bad.
In fact the law of comparative advantage shows that without those 9 jobs in Shanghai there would not be that one job in America....and in fact without the trade we have with China not only would China be poorer and have higher unemployment but we would as well.
Comparative advantage is hard to understand.
my friend, who works in tool and die, went to China on business. He described a backwards country with an ignorant populace. The factory he was assigned to had a prison-like barracks, had rolling blackouts, and an unskilled workforce. The workers were assigned positions, like QA, Engineer, etc, without any education or training.
If this is the future...
Authoritarian state capitalism is the wave of the future in the 21st Century, and this is yet more evidence. Deal with it.
Bullshit, either that or the last time he went was in 1990.
Re: The Truth,
Oh, you mean that, according to you, things changed, just like they supposedly did in Western Europe regarding those pigeon holes they call "homes"?
Watch Last Train home and then say that.
actually it was two weeks ago.
actually it was two weeks ago.
curse the monkeys!
actually it was two weeks ago.
When was the last time you went to China, dipshit? Getting your "gold harvested" email acknowledgment for your WoW character doesn't count.
He described a backwards country with an ignorant populace. [...] The workers were assigned positions, like QA, Engineer, etc, without any education or training.
Also serves as a pitch-perfect description of Obama's cabinet, in miniature.
Re: The Truth,
That has been the "way of the future" since the 1910s - back when it was being called "Fascism."
Glad to know where YOU stand, "The Truth"
They make their high-speed trains run on time!
The wave of the future is authoritarian state capitalism
You know who else liked authoritarian state capitalism?
FDR? Yeah, I went there.
Tom Friedman?
George W Bush?
Barack Obama?
GE?
Who doesn't?
I posted on FB the other day that I was disappointed in Paul Ryan's budget because it didn't cut most of the 1300+ federal agencies and departments and suggested we could probably survive with about a dozen departments total. First lefty response I got was "Yeah roads suck." Second response was Somalia. Third was child labor abuses stopped by FDR. I swear they have a text book they just all read from. Fortunately, all these responses were from one idiot, but still, the talking points were dead on stereotypical.
Your mistake was when you used Facebook. Stop that.
Blindly parroting fear-mongering talking points is so much easier than using critical thinking skills for some people.
My idiot statist friends on Facebook quote from the same playbook
the roads DO suck here.
But just image how bad they are in Somalia.
High Speed Rail is pretty much the answer to everyone's problems, from bad roads to your sister in law's alcoholism.
I got a 'if you like less government move to Somalia' response yesterday too... I almost replied with "OMG SOMALIA!"
This is why I don't engage anyone on FB over politics. No upside.
I eventually just block the egregiously obnoxious lefties, as I've done with several family members.
Spending good.
Saving bad.
Spending Borrowing good.
Saving bad.
Equals:
Debt Good.
Assets Bad.
WTF!
used your Swiss quote in my latest blog
As devoted readers of your blog, we all know that already.
lol, you might lose your decoder ring for admitting that fact. 😉
rather has a blog? Who knew?
I wished she mentioned it before.
Swiss army knives!!
What are they good for?!?!?
On that same note why the fuck was I even included in your blog quotes??
Incomplete quoted I might add.
Swiss army knives bitches!!!
For them, the 1920s never existed, it would seem... Or post-WWII USA - you know, the new great depression that every single Keynesian predicted would happen, and never happened?
Or the Great Stagflation of 1971-1979, which Keynesians said could never ever happen? Yeah, that didn't exist either, in their minds... "These are not the pieces of evidence you're looking for... Move along."
The stagflation was caused by the oil shock.
Re: The Truth,
Thus spoke the result of Amerikan Pulbic Educashion.
It was not due to the "oil shock", nitwit. There was NO oil shock, the so-called "embargo" being mostly an empty threat, as most foreign oil was still coming from Canada and Mexico. What you're thinkng of is the gas shortage, which was entirely government-made. But the Stagflation (inflation and unemployment) was ENTIRELY a monetary phenomenon.
But according to the Phillips Curve it couldn't happen, oil shock or no.
Used your quote too in my latest blog
@ the truth
I like your blog. Please keep everyone informed whenever you update it. It's important that you share your incredible incisive analysis with the world at large. Really.
The stagflation was caused by the oil shock.
And the oil shock was caused by too many American dollars chasing the same amount of oil.
People call that inflation.
Tim, you and every thinking American need to separate in your minds the notion of "cutting government" from the notion of "cutting the deficit."
To be blunt, the deficit right now is still far too small - aggregate demand is far below the level needed to reach full employment. As I've stated in these comments pages before, you can sustain large deficits by means of additional tax cuts, and you can also employ people to repair/build basic infrastructure. None of that needs to mean "increasing the size of government."
Unfortunately, ignorance of how the monetary system of the US works leads people to the opposite conclusion than they would reach if they understood the facts.
We need far, far more net financial assets in private hands right now, not less. Running a deficit puts net financial assets into private hands. And a larger deficit puts that much more into those hands.
Who's the rain-dancer here Tim? Reasonoid libertarians? Or professional economics forecasters who have unanimously predicted that the proposed major spending cuts will lead to real and measurable decreases in economic output? The professional forecasters are paid according to their ability to get it right. And they understand something you are not grasping: starving the American consumer of the money needed to reflate aggregate demand will harm economic growth, in the current conditions of excess capacity and high unemployment.
Drink! (Before the price goes up!)
Re: Draco,
No, it only means deepening the recession by crowding out the private sector out of cheaper labor. These "make-work" schemes are NO DIFFERENT than propping up housing or food prices to stem "deflation." They maintain the price of either labor, housing, food, what have you, artificially high, thus postponing the necessary correction and accurate pricing by the market.
It may be painful to have to settle for a lower wage, but keeping up this travesty only makes things worse and the correction even more painful. Like I mentioned before: Deficit spending, whether to stimulate demand or the economy, is like digging a hole under the guy who is falling from a small cliff, in order to give him a temporary (and, alas, a false) respite; the ground will be equally hard but the hit unecessarily more painful.
Deflation is a far greater evil than a moderate inflation. Most economists agree with me, not with you.
Deflation isnt an evil at all.
Unless you hate the poor.
And yet the world continues to behave differently than you and your economists expect.
Except this country experienced almost constant deflation for a hundred years and grew at almost the same rate as it did after the age of cheap credit began.
Yeah, what we really need is misallocation of capital to replace the last bubble, which replaced the last bubble, which replaced....
No matter how many times the Austrians are proven correct, these idiots just don't get it.
You really don't aid your argument by ad hominems, as satisfying as it may be to you to call people idiots. J. M. Keynes may have been many things, but he was definitely not an idiot.
And as much as I can't stand Krugman, he's right that the deficits were too small.
Who's the rain-dancer here Tim?
You were saying about ad hominems?
Ad-homs beat the shit out of appeal-to-long-discredited authority. Which is all you ever bring.
Keynes was never an authority. Hayek discredited him in his day.
J. M. Keynes may have been many things, but he was definitely not an idiot.
No...he may not have been.....lets just say he may have been too distracted by Lytton Strachey to think clearly.
Back from lunch
Draco, I'm not making an ad hominem argument. I'm calling you an idiot. And on top of that, I'm calling you an amoral SOB for your views on taxation and fiat money. You're not much different than The Truth in that you view government as the system that must be optimized in order to achieve the desired results. I view government as a necessary evil that was established for very specific purposes and with a very limited mandate, a mandate which has been far exceeded on every level.
I encourage you to get your nose out of the asses of Keynes and your Chartalist mentors and read something worthwhile like Locke, de Tocqueville, JS Mill, von Mises, Hayek, or any other author who values individual liberty.
Hey Scruffy, do you understand the difference between normative statements and descriptive statements? I'm explaining to you the way the world works when you've got a fiat currency. I'm not saying it's the best of all possible worlds. I'm not even saying it's a good world. It simply is, and our inability to draw the correct inferences from that reality are endangering our standard of living.
You may as well argue with me that I am an SOB for teaching quantum mechanics because ionizing radiation is harmful to humans.
And I while I always appreciate good book tips, I've already read quite a bit by all of the authors you mentioned (plus Epstein, Friedman, Barnett, Hoppe, Rothbard, Rand, etc.)
What's amusing is that Denninger destroyed this argument nicely just this morning:
http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=184048
Thanks for that link. Good stuff.
Draco wont respond intelligently
professional economics forecasters who have unanimously predicted that the proposed major spending cuts will lead to real and measurable decreases in economic output?
Moar holes, plz.
Given the title of this thread, this is also relevant...
To be blunt, the deficit right now is still far too small
Draco, are you still on about "pump priming" and "multipliers"?
Are you in the "Debt good, assets bad" camp of economics?
Or do you think because we are printing those dollars rather than borrowing them, that means that the economic reports somehow reflect real increases in productivity and assets, rather than increased liquidity?
At some point, the standard of living has to be supported by productivity, not debt, and not paper dropped from helicopters.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MULT
just cause I love this graph sooo much as a refutation of Keysian multipliers
9-18% of Americans who want work can't find it. They are sitting idle. Now imagine giving suitcases of money to people who are working - say, by cutting FICA withholding to zero. They will spend or invest that money, to satisfy their desires - whatever those might be. There are always unmet needs, as someone pointed out the other day. Now, firms whose business model rests on fulfilling those needs will have to increase output and hire more workers. Lather, rinse, repeat - until there is no more excess demand. The economy is a bit like a lawn - you have to tend it, and sometimes you need to over-seed and water to have a healthy lawn. Especially after a drought. (OK, this is starting to sound like Being There.)
There's a lot more discussion of this over on Warren Mosler's blog.
There's a lot of weeds in your lawn that need to be pulled.
As Barro pointed out, the multiplier effect for tax cuts is greater than 1, so cutting FICA would work.
However, the multiplier for non-war spending is not significantly different than zero.
OK. There you go. So let's agree to cut taxes?
Sure, and cut spending an equal amount. Actually twice as much, to reduce the dificit. Actually, to about 5% or less of GDP, because fuck you government, you arent even worth 1/2 of God.
Lather, rinse, repeat - until there is no more excess demand
Sorry, I meant "until there is no more excess capacity."
"9-18% of Americans who want work can't find it. They are sitting idle. Now imagine giving suitcases of money to people who are working - say, by cutting FICA withholding to zero"
Are they going take that suitcase of money and start up a business?
We lack properly invested capital, not consumption. You can be a giant lardass and still be malnourished.
It seems like a logical fallacy to argue that idle people should be "doing something" regardless of what that "something" entails.
There are always unmet needs and idle capacity in any economy, unless we are talking about a universal sized supercomputer that uses all of the matter in existence to process data. Why is employing people a goal in and of itself?
Also, if an economy NEEDS to see a decrease in its wage rates, job losses and unemployment are necessary for a true recovery to take place.
WTF!
I forgot my sarcasm tags.
That's what happens when I channel Krugabe (and Draco).
Maybe we could hire the Japanese to bomb Detroit and Cleveland. I have been led to believe that is a surefire way to "stimulate aggregate demand".
Keep setting up the straw men - they're so easy to knock down. And it's great exercise!
Did you ever read the Barro stuff I pointed you too?
If so, WTF?
robc, you're kind of like the guy who, when I'm arguing about the absurdity of a minimum wage law, tells me to go read studies about how when the minimum wage is raised, it doesn't lead to a rise in unemployment.
I think you, and Barro, and Stephen Moore, and RC Dean, and Tim Cavanaugh are missing the point.
Following what I've proposed wouldn't "crowd out" private spending and investment. Government doesn't borrow and tax in order to spend - it spends. And then borrows to help establish interest rates, and taxes in order to destroy money (to stop inflation).
Borrowing crowds out other uses for that borrowed money. It creates inefficiencies. There is no way for government to spend without borrowing or creating money out of thin air, both or which are bad.
The bowling alley creates "points" out of thin air. The purpose is served - you can bet your buddy dinner that you can out-bowl him, and the alley has all the points it needs to keep track of your game.
Do you worry about where the bowling alley gets its points? Do you think it has to borrow points?
We don't live under a commodity currency any longer. That makes all the difference.
That is moronic.
Money != pts.
The government can create dollars, but each one created reduces the value of my saved ones.
Which is why gold keeps going up.
We are still on a gold standard...it turns out you cant not be on a commodity currency.
Au contraire, money is very much like "points" in a modern economy. It's a radical thought, I realize - but I thought libertarians were capable of thinking radical thoughts.
The government has set itself up as a type of scorekeeper, determining how much each person gets based on their behaviors. I agree that that is quite problematic, for a number of reasons including morality, but that's the world we live in right now.
Here's a shocking fact for you: if you pay your federal income taxes in cash, they shred the cash. They don't need your money in order to spend.
They shred it and replace it with more that they print.
If they were (only) shredding money constantly, the money supply wouldnt have tripled recently.
And gold has been tracking the money supply nicely.
Stupid analogy department:
Im in a bowling tournament, I bowl a 200. Guy next to me bowls a 150. Then, the alley creates 75 pts out of thin air and gives them to that guy and declares him the champion, 225-200. Those 75 pts deflated my 200.
If the prize money in the tourney is paid out by point proportion, then the same amount of prize money is given out, just my proportion is reduced. No multiplier effect due to the point creation at all and clear case of inefficiency created (in that the most efficient bowler gets less money).
In fact, if you could bribe the alley for the magical points, it would create a bubble economy in those points, that would eventually crash.
The analogy, in fact, is so moronic that I now doubt Draco's sincerity.
A good troll never overplays his hand (even though one can always print more aces.
@Citizen Nothing
🙂
Certain friends of mine actually worry that if more people understand the truth about our monetary system, it will ultimately make matters worse. So, if I do a bad job arguing this point here, they are somewhat relieved. And I've got some pretty influential friends. Go ahead, let my friends rest easy - dismiss Modern Monetary Theory (which is what I've been talking) as crackpotism.
I myself don't worry all that much - like most of you, I have no expectation that our Congress will make substantial cuts during this time of high unemployment. The difference is, I think that's the correct course of action at this time.
Unfortunately, the government does use its "points" to reward people who don't "deserve" it at the expense of those who do. That's the other, really nefarious, purpose of the income tax - to redistribute wealth. But its economic purpose is to remove money from the system to prevent inflation - and that part is pretty much morally neutral.
That's our entire effin point, Draco. Money creation is not resource creation, but resource redistribution. You seem to understand that, but you think that libertarians main problem with money creation is the creation of money itself. Sigh...
This paper reaches a similar conclusion as Barro. The author makes the distinction between countries with a debt to GDP ratio over 60%, in which case the short term multiplier is zero, and the long term multiplier is negative.
Economies operating under predetermined exchange rate regimes have long-run multipliers that are larger than one in some specifications, but economies with flexible exchange rate regimes have essentially zero multipliers.
Economies that are relatively closed
(whether due to trade barriers or larger internal markets) have long-run multipliers of around 1.3 to 1.4, but relatively open economies have negative multipliers.
also
The multiplier in open economies is negative and significantly lower than zero both on impact and in the long run.
Lots of good stuff in that paper.
Is nice to see that relatively free markets (floating exchange rates, open trade) are basically immune to Keynesian gamesmanship.
Now if we could get the fuckers to stop playing the games.
The argument (such as it is) for Keynesian spending is more accurately described as the "Benevolent Nigerian Prince" principle of economics.
"If I just give (this nice Nigerian Prince/the all-wise and fiscally prudent State) unrestricted access to (my personal banking information/ever-increasing amounts of tax revenue), I'm absolutely guaranteed to be (fabulously wealthy forever/the owner of my very own unicorn farm)!"
the standard of living has to be supported by productivity
Wait- are you trying to tell us the TSA is not a net plus, productivity-wise?
Say it ain't so!
The professional forecasters are paid according to their ability to get it right.
Like Zandi, right?
WHEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!
The professional forecasters are paid according to their ability to get it right.
This was in which novel?
Yeah. Like management consultants are paid based on their success. Remember, if you can't fix the problem, there's good money to be made talking about it.
and prolonging it.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MULT
The fact that it is below one only shows in graphical form what should be evident from reality (Pun intended - I mean both reality and real estate). The fact that government or people can "invest" is no guarantee that the investiment will have a positive return. Too many houses bought using credit that cannot be truly paid for....all the extend and pretend won't change that.
Base Money Supply
Whats the current spike? QE2?
Wow! The economy must be booming!
The money supply has tripled and people think gold is a bubble.
Keynesian economics are always good intentions gone horribly wrong, and the only people who buy into it are the ones who's paycheck depends on it.
http://www.intellectualtakeout.....ral-theory