Tag: Interventionism

  • Who is Responsible for Inflation?

    Walter Williams explains the difference between counterfeiting and monetary policy. He explains that “inflation results from an increase in the supply of money relative to the demand for money.” He asks who, then, is responsible for inflation? In the United states, who is able to create money? The answer, of course, is the Federal Reserve System, and they’re creating it by the bucketful. Williams asks whether we really need our central bank, and answers his question with a history lesson. He makes a recommendation how to get ouy of the trouble we’re in.

    Read this fine article in the Washington Times at Counterfeiting vs. monetary policy.

  • The New Deal in Retrospect

    Many people refer to incoming president Barack Obama as the next FDR. The myth of Franklin Roosevelt — primarily that he cured the Great Depression through his extreme interventionism — is starting to be exposed. In this review (The Disaster Called the New Deal) of Burton Folsom’s book New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America, David Gordon of the Ludwig von Mises Institute shows us the good and bad.

    Did the New Deal cure unemployment? “In May 1939, Treasury Secretary Henry J. Morgenthau Jr., one of Franklin Roosevelt’s best friends, testified before the House Ways and Means Committee: ‘I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot.’”

    Some today say that Roosevelt didn’t spend enough, that the stimulus was not powerful enough. Folsom refers to Henry Hazlitt: “Every dollar of government spending must be raised through a dollar of taxation,” Hazlitt emphasized. If the WPA builds a $10 million dollar bridge, for example, ‘the bridge has to be paid out of taxes… Therefore,’ Hazlitt observed, “for every public job created by the bridge project a private job has been destroyed somewhere else… All that has happened, at best, is that there has been a diversion of jobs because of the project.”

    Reviewer Gordon has a problem with this book in that Folsom ignores Austrian economic theory, including its theory of the business cycle. Still, I believe Gordon thinks this is a book worth reading.

  • Hard to believe, but not everyone in politics wants a free lunch

    Writing in the Wall Street Journal (Governors Against State Bailouts), the governors of Texas and South Carolina argue against bailouts: “It is also taking our country in a very dangerous direction — toward a ‘bailout mentality’ where we look to government rather than ourselves for solutions.”

    Unfortunately, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius doesn’t agree. She’s very much on the gravy train. In fact, she’s driving. As reported in the Kansas Liberty article Bailout-mania spreads to the states, “Sebelius leads call for hand-outs from the new Obama administration.”

  • Bailout-mania spreads to the states

    Bailout-mania spreads to the states, and Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius is at the forefront. As reported in Kansas Liberty:

    Sebelius , a Democrat and vigorous Obama supporter who is rumored to be a candidate for a cabinet appointment, formally presented Obama with a request on behalf of the National Governors Association for $40 billion to help fund health care assistance for the poor.

    “President-Elect Obama made it clear that he wanted input and ideas from governors about the focus and size of the stimulus package which he plans to propose to help get the economy back on track,” Sebelius said in a statement issued after the meeting.

    Read the whole story at Bailout-mania spreads to the states.

  • Ron Paul says “The Austrians were right”

    In a statement Ron Paul delivered to the United States House of Representatives on November 20, 2008, he made these points:

    1. Our government is “totally influenced by Keynesian economics.”
    2. “At least 90% of the cause for the financial crisis can be laid at the doorstep of the Federal Reserve. It is the manipulation of credit, the money supply, and interest rates that caused the various bubbles to form. ”
    3. The Federal Reserve created this problem. Why do we rely on it to fix the mess it created?
    4. “… the stage is now set for massive nationalization of the financial system and quite likely the means of production.”
    5. “Raising taxes would reveal the true cost of big government, and the people would revolt.”
    6. So the government creates money from thin air to pay for all this.

    Read the entire statement at The Austrians Were Right.

  • New Deal Shouldn’t Be Our Template for Recovery

    Can huge government spending programs rescue our economy? Amity Shlaes doesn’t think so:

    The New Deal is Mr. Obama’s context for the giant infrastructure plan his new team is developing. If he proposes FDR-style recovery programs, then it is useful to establish whether those original programs actually brought recovery. The answer is, they didn’t. New Deal spending provided jobs but did not get the country back to where it was before.

    (The Krugman Recipe for Depression , November 29, 2008 Wall Street Journal.)

    The present danger is that influential economists like Paul Krugman of the New York Times argue that during the New Deal, government spending wasn’t high enough, and that’s why the Great Depression lasted so long.

  • The Austrian Prescription for Today

    Murray N. Rothbard, in his book For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, wrote a chapter that is highly relevant to the situation we face today. Unfortunately, if Rothbard’s analysis of the business cycle using Austrian economics is correct — and I believe it is — what’s going on presently in Washington, and what president-elect Barack Obama is planning, will do much more harm than good.

    The chapter’s title is “Inflation and the Business Cycle: The Collapse of the Keynesian Paradigm.” In it, Rothbard explains the flaws in the Keynesian theory of the business cycle. This theory — in spite of its defects — is pretty much what our present and future administrations are following as they attempt to manage our economy. In fact, Steven Pearlstein’s column in yesterday’s Washington Post is titled Keynes on Steroids, and it contains this whopper: “Nixon’s Keynesian conversion, however, looks positively quaint compared with the fiscal and monetary stimulus that is about to be brought to bear on the U.S. and global economy. I doubt even Keynes himself could have imagined the scale and scope of what’s ahead.”

    The Austrian school of economics has a different theory of the business cycle, and a different prescription for what government should do to get the country out of recession. It’s not a prescription that our leaders are likely to follow. In fact, everything they are doing, and are preparing to do, directly contravenes the Austrian prescription. Here’s what Rothbard wrote near the end of chapter 9 of For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (I’ve added some emphasis):

    What then are the policy conclusions that arise rapidly and easily from the Austrian analysis of the business cycle? They are the precise opposite from those of the Keynesian establishment. For, since the virus of distortion of production and prices stems from inflationary bank credit expansion, the Austrian prescription for the business cycle will be: First, if we are in a boom period, the government and its banks must cease inflating immediately. It is true that this cessation of artificial stimulant will inevitably bring the inflationary boom to an end, and will inaugurate the inevitable recession or depression. But the longer the government delays this process, the harsher the necessary readjustments will have to be. For the sooner the depression readjustment is gotten over with, the better. This also means that the government must never try to delay the depression process; the depression must be allowed to work itself out as quickly as possible, so that real recovery can begin. This means, too, that the government must particularly avoid any of the interventions so dear to Keynesian hearts. It must never try to prop up unsound business situations; it must never bail out or lend money to business firms in trouble. For doing so will simply prolong the agony and convert a sharp and quick depression phase into a lingering and chronic disease. The government must never try to prop up wage rates or prices, especially in the capital goods industries; doing so will prolong and delay indefinitely the completion of the depression adjustment process. It will also cause indefinite and prolonged depression and mass unemployment in the vital capital goods industries. The government must not try to inflate again in order to get out of the depression. For even if this reinflation succeeds (which is by no means assured), it will only sow greater trouble and more prolonged and renewed depression later on. The government must do nothing to encourage consumption, and it must not increase its own expenditures, for this will further increase the social consumption/investment ratio—when the only thing that could speed up the adjustment process is to lower the consumption/savings ratio so that more of the currently unsound investments will become validated and become economic. The only way the government can aid in this process is to lower its own budget, which will increase the ratio of investment to consumption in the economy (since government spending may be regarded as consumption spending for bureaucrats and politicians).

    Thus, what the government should do, according to the Austrian analysis of the depression and the business cycle, is absolutely nothing. It should stop its own inflating, and then it should maintain a strict hands-off, laissez-faire policy. Anything it does will delay and obstruct the adjustment processes of the market; the less it does, the more rapidly will the market adjustment process do its work and sound economic recovery ensue.

    Will our government follow Rothbard’s recommendation to do “absolutely nothing”? Absolutely not.

  • Introducing Economics in One Lesson

    In This Book is So Me, Walter Block introduces a book that I’ve quoted from and used extensively: Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.

    Every widespread economic fallacy embraced by pundits, politicians, editorialists, clergy, academics is given the back of the hand they so richly deserve by this author: that public works promote economic welfare, that unions and union-inspired minimum-wage laws actually raise wages, that free trade creates unemployment, that rent control helps house the poor, that saving hurts the economy, that profits exploit the poverty stricken; the list goes on and on. Exhilarating.

    No one who digests this book will ever be the same when it comes to public-policy analysis.

    This book is available online at the Foundation for Economic Education, and portions are available in audio format at Economics in One Lesson (Audio) Part 1 and Economics in One Lesson (Audio) Part 2.

  • Broad-based Economic Development Will Work Best for Kansas

    Alan Cobb of Americans For Prosperity — Kansas argues that instead of micro-management of economic development efforts, Kansas should aim for a businesses climate that’s good for everyone. See Yes, but it’s only $1.3 billion.

    We should heed this advice locally in Wichita.