|
September 06, 2010
A Deficit Of Understanding
Paul Krugman argues: What's less well known is the extent to which the public drew the wrong conclusions from the recession that followed: far from calling for a resumption of New Deal programs, voters lost faith in fiscal expansion. Having just finished Amity Shlaes' The Forgotten Man this weekend, I can say that while their attitude may confuse Krugman in 2010, Americans in 1937-8 had seen fiscal expansion's failure first-hand. Unemployment was still in the teens, compared to 3% in 1927, and the Dow was still far below where it had been ten years earlier. Over the 1930s GDP per capita had gone from being a third higher than Great Britain's to roughly equal (the Economist blamed "institutional obstructions to the free flow of capital"). The undistributed profits tax was stifling investment, FDR was outlawing holding companies (saying he wanted a "death sentence" for them), and the TVA was deliberately driving private competitors out of business. Even Keynes had written to FDR complaining the government's hand was too heavy. Meanwhile, the Russian economic triumph FDR's programs were modelled on had begun to take on a very bad odor -- Stalin's paranoid, barbaric show trials of Russian heroes he perceived as threats to his rule were upsetting even his supporters in America. And the planners in Germany and Italy were turning out to be even worse. Government spending had not even brought the economy back to pre-Depression levels, let alone delivered the economic growth proponents had promised, and everyone could see the ugliness unrestrained government was capable of. The mystery is that anyone alive in 1938 thought yet more government was the answer. The other argument Krugman makes is that WW II was a giant fiscal stimulus that produced prosperity, and therefore another one today will do the same. To the extent this is true of the war effort, though, all that extra GDP really "produced" was death and destruction in Europe, financed by war bonds that would not have been sold in normal circumstances. This is truly the broken windows fallacy writ large -- the overall effect of the war spending was to devastate the world economy out of all proportion to any benefit to the United States. Does anyone really doubt we'd have been better off overall if WWII had never happened? While Krugman argues the war "boom" created long-term prosperity, it's much more likely the economy was finally experiencing a natural, long-delayed rebound as the onerous yoke of FDR's experiments was gradually eased, the economy reflated due to capital flight from Europe, trade resumed under the Bretton Woods agreement, and businesses went back to creating productivity improvements and innovative products and services. If there's one lesson to be learned from the 20th century it's that you cannot centrally plan long-term prosperity. Massive government intervention can sometimes produce illusory short-term growth in GDP, but only at the cost of creating inefficiencies and misallocating resources in ways that willl hinder long-term growth. posted by Dave on 09.06.10 at 10:59 AM
Comments
Massive government intervention can sometimes produce illusory short-term growth in GDP, but only at the cost of creating inefficiencies and misallocating resources in ways that will hinder long-term growth. Yes, and the Federal Reserve which is little more than a monetary arm of government has done that twice recently. The dot-com bubble was Greenspan's first accommodation, and the housing bubble his final folly. As a student of the Depression, he advocated throwing money into the economy at the first sign of a correction. He gave a lecture years ago quoting from Benjamin Anderson's Economics And The Public Welfare to the effect that THE cause of the extended Depression was the tight money policy of the Fed. Bernanke seems to have the same ideas. If one were betting on their next move, it would be the attempt to create another bubble. How they will go about this is anyone's guess. Anonymous · September 6, 2010 11:55 PM Well, the housing bubble was certainly a government creation, though it probably had more to do with fiscal and regulatory policy than monetary. The dot-com bubble was just the usual irrational exuberance we see from a transformative technology -- the same thing happened with electricity when it was introduced. TallDave · September 7, 2010 07:59 AM You don't think keeping interest rates artificially low helped funnel investment money into both of those areas? Anonymous · September 7, 2010 08:42 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
September 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
September 2010
August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Start your own conspiracy theory -- in the privacy of your home!
A higher standard for those who don't need it A Hound Dog Fraudulent Facebook "settings" I never created and cannot delete Since when have mass extinctions saved this planet? A Deficit Of Understanding Personal Preference vs. Economic Activity Not That It Matters, I'm Just Saying What about my right to a state fair? Saudi savagery paid for by "betas" at the gas pump
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Another related reason for the American boom in the prosperity of the average factory worker in the 1950s is that the rest of the world had been kind enough to blow up their factories (or let us blow them up). This rather limited the amount of competition for American industrial workers.
Unfortunately, teachers and political candidates have orated for decades now that that prosperity was the result of strong labor unions and because American factory workers are really, really special.