Skip to main content

A contrarian/libertarian explanation of Keynesian ecoomics....

... from Coyote:

By the way, if you are confused about Keysian stimulus, here it is in a nutshell: The economy is contracting some as people deleverage from over-spending and an asset bubble. I mean, that’s certainly what we are doing in the Coyote den, setting goals for both de-leveraging the business and our household. But folks are worried, because while this has happened many times, one of those times we had a depression. So the government does not want you to deleverage. It wants you to spend and spend. But it knows you won’t, and that it has not yet accumulated enough power to force you to. So it will borrow and spend for you. Government stimulus means that when you are trying to save and reduce debt, government is going to run up debt in your name.

By the way, for those wondering how well this works, the last time we tried it was during the aforementioned depression, and the depression lasted another 8-10 years.


Here's the same concept, explained by neo-Keynesian guru Paul Krugman:

Some background: one of the high points of the semester, if you’re a teacher of introductory macroeconomics, comes when you explain how individual virtue can be public vice, how attempts by consumers to do the right thing by saving more can leave everyone worse off. The point is that if consumers cut their spending, and nothing else takes the place of that spending, the economy will slide into a recession, reducing everyone’s income.


What's missing in Keynesian economics is the possibility that rather than trying continually to pump life into the existing, credit-driven economic system (which requires us to keep pumping out vast amounts of consumer goods beyond any reasonable capacity for morally conscionable consumption), maybe somebody somewhere ought to be thinking about the new economy trying to be born.

Krugman--by his own admission--is attempting to recreate and extend the 1950s economy he sees as resulting from the New Deal and World War Two. There is precious little evidence in this writing that he really has any futurist understanding of places either the American or world markets may be taking us.

Barack Obama is at least partly right when he says, ”But at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe.”

Only government either possesses or can commandeer the resources necessary to attempt either to keep a particular type of tottering economic system on its feet when most of the conditions which created it have changed.

Only government either possesses or asserts the power to turn back time six decades for a do-over of the New Deal.

Comments

Tyler Nixon said…
Well said. Nothing like fresh thinking from the dead hand of the 1930's to guide 21st century economic interventionism by a government probably far more massive than even FDR ever would have envisioned. Krugman is a guru in his own mind. His tripe is little more than the peddling of dried-up snake oil, fanning crisis thinking to justify his national statist ideology.
Brian Miller said…
The hilarious irony is that the 1950s economy is dead and gone -- the tottering rotten corpse they're trying to keep shambling forward is an economy with most of its industrial base rotted away.

The 1950s manufacturing economy had big factories in Kensington, high wages, shorter work weeks, affordable housing, low taxes, and save-n-spend.

The present system they're trying to prop up has destroyed neighborhoods in Philadelphia and other big cities, huge slave-labor plants in China, low and falling wages, long work weeks, insanely expensive housing, skyrocketing taxes, and borrow-n-spend just to meet necessities for most working-class people.

The sooner it dies, the sooner the working people of this country will get a shot at the American Dream again. (And no, that "dream" is not 40 years of debt slavery in exchange for an overpriced and poorly constructed house built by illegal immigrant labor out of glue and sawdust -- regardless of what Barney Frank would argue).

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...