Will Sandy Revive the Economy? Yeah, Right

OK, Paul Krugman has not claimed that Hurricane Sandy will make us rich or revive the economy, but at least one other mainstream economist has done something of that sort. Peter Morici, an economist at the University of Maryland, has written that disasters such as Sandy ultimately might prove net economic benefits because of all the cleanup and construction (or re-construction) work that follows.

One does not know whether to laugh or cry at this nonsense. Frederic Bastiat effectively destroyed this "Broken Window" fallacy nearly two centuries ago, but the monster continues to poke up his head and people who should know better swallow the idiocy.

Krugman actually did succumb to this fallacy 11 years ago, as Reason.com points out:

The ultimate example of broken-window lunacy comes from Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman. On September 14, 2001, Krugman used his New York Times column to lecture Big Apple residents about the upside of the utter destruction of the World Trade Center and a good chunk of lower Manhattan just a few days earlier: "Now, all of a sudden, we need some new office buildings...the destruction isn't big compared with the economy, but rebuilding will generate at least some increase in business spending."

 Hey, economies are nothing more than spending, right? Just print, borrow, and spend and we'll all get rich, even if we throw a hurricane into the mix.

If anyone is wondering, we got hit with a blizzard of heavy, wet snow that snapped trees and power lines. We have been without power since Monday evening and, unlike Paul Krugman, we do not have a generator (which means we have no running water). Life has been interesting but hardly tragic. I now understand why the Amish tend to go to bed early.

I have included a couple of photos of our place to put this whole storm into perspective. Yes, that is our van on the right.

Krugman: Break Windows, Help the Economy

OK, so Paul Krugman has decided to be a political shill for Barack Obama, but in today's blog post, he decides to abandon economics all together. Just as Larry Kudlow, Timothy Noah and others jettisoned economic logic for a bizarre "Broken Windows Theory" when they claimed that the 9/11 attacks would be good for the economy,  Krugman (fittingly on September 11) makes a similar claim about the iPhone 5.

Krugman writes:

There’s been some buzz about a report suggesting that the iPhone 5 could, all by itself, give a significant boost to the US economy. I can’t judge how plausible the sales estimates are; but it’s worth pointing out how the economic logic of this suggestion relates to the larger picture.

The key point is that the optimism about the iPhone’s effects has nothing (or at any rate not much) to do with the presumed quality of the phone, and the ways in which it might make us happier or more productive. Instead, the immediate gains would come from the way the new phone would get people to junk their old phones and replace them.

In other words, if you believe that the iPhone really might give the economy a big boost, you have — whether you realize it or not — bought into a version of the “broken windows” theory, in which destroying some capital can actually be a good thing under depression conditions

Of course, it’s nice that the reason we’re junking old capital is to make room for something better, not just for the hell of it. But you know what would also be nice? Building useful stuff like infrastructure employing labor and cash that would otherwise sit idle.

First, it is obvious that Krugman has not a clue about the creation of wealth and he certainly knows nothing about capital. Keynesians believe that the real benefit of capital spending is, well, spending, and Krugman does nothing to dispel that false notion in this post.

Second, the idea that the money spent on buying new iPhones would provide a "significant boost" to the economy is to forget what Keynesians and Krugman always forget: opportunity cost. If someone purchases an iPhone, then that means the person cannot purchase something else. The presence of new iPhones does not mean that suddenly everyone has new reserves with which to spend new money.

Now, Krugman seems at best to give a backhanded endorsement of the "broken windows theory," but nonetheless this "theory" is pure Keynesianism. As every Austrian knows, it is not even the "broken windows theory," but rather the "broken windows fallacy." The concept comes from Frederic Bastiat in his famous "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen," the first chapter entitled, "The Broken Window."

Defenders of Krugman will point to the last paragraph in the quote in which he essentially calls for more public works spending, but one needs to remember that Krugman sees public works projects as important not because of the roads and bridges that will make transportation more reliable, but because these projects are transmitters of spending via individual incomes.

He has it backward. What we produce is what permits us to consume. Krugman believes that all it takes is for someone to have cash in his hand, and the goods magically appear on the shelves. It might work that way in Wonderland, but not in a real economy.

(Thanks to Scott Ellis for showing me Krugman's post)

Krugman Solves Another Mystery! And Breaks More Windows!

In his column on why he believes austerity is the wrong policy, Paul Krugman manages to play the part of both a psychologist AND an advocate of Broken-Window Economics, which is a pretty big accomplishment when one is limited to 750 words. But, then, Krugman is an exceptional person and he was up to this mighty task.

Broken Window Fallacy, Again (and Again)

It is hard to know where to begin, but I think I'll start with his newest version of why breaking windows is good economics, and leave the psychology until the end. In a move that is like hurling a one-ton boulder through a huge plate-glass window, Krugman writes:

The bad metaphor — which you’ve surely heard many times — equates the debt problems of a national economy with the debt problems of an individual family. A family that has run up too much debt, the story goes, must tighten its belt. So if Britain, as a whole, has run up too much debt — which it has, although it’s mostly private rather than public debt — shouldn’t it do the same? What’s wrong with this comparison? 

The answer is that an economy is not like an indebted family. Our debt is mostly money we owe to each other; even more important, our income mostly comes from selling things to each other. Your spending is my income, and my spending is your income. 

So what happens if everyone simultaneously slashes spending in an attempt to pay down debt? The answer is that everyone’s income falls — my income falls because you’re spending less, and your income falls because I’m spending less. And, as our incomes plunge, our debt problem gets worse, not better.

 I admit that this sounds good, and I am sure that the Really Brilliant People at Princeton and the NY Times will be his Amen Chorus, but Krugman actually manages to pile up one fallacy after another, and in the process he also demonstrates his belief that factors of production really are homogeneous. Now, if that really were the case -- one set of assets is just like another -- then maybe the Keynesian argument would make sense, but in an economy made up of heterogeneous labor, resources, and capital, Krugman really is pursuing circular logic.

Austrians argue -- correctly, I believe -- that the real problem that becomes manifest during the boom is that investors are led down the wrong paths into investments that cannot be sustained, period. Take housing, for example. Since the Housing Bubble burst in 2007-08, the government has poured billions and billions of dollars into trying to reflate the bubble, yet overall housing prices are continuing to fall.

Keynesians have no answer for this, because in their view, if the government or private consumers continue to throw money at an asset, then it automatically should be sustained. Yet, it is obvious that the housing market it not behaving according to Keynesian dictates.

Nowhere is the dichotomy between Austrians and Keynesians more clear than in those three paragraphs. With Krugman, it is all spending all of the time, and if government slashes spending on things like "green energy" subsidies, then it is making EVERYONE poorer. Austrians, on the other hand, correctly note that these kinds of subsidies themselves enrich those who are politically-connected at the expense of everyone else. Malinvestments don't even enter the picture, at least not in Wonderland.

Yes, Yes, Advocates of "Austerity" Hate Poor People

Krugman next turns to his psychological skills, ferreting out what he says is the REAL reason that "austerity" advocates continue to push their views:

...the austerity drive in Britain isn’t really about debt and deficits at all; it’s about using deficit panic as an excuse to dismantle social programs.

In the world of Keynesianism, spending on social programs creates wealth. For example, when President Obama announced that he was killing the Keystone Pipeline, he also added that the payment of additional unemployment benefits actually would help the economy more than would the building of a pipeline because it would bring about more spending than would occur in the construction of the line.

To put it another way, Obama believes that oil is not an asset, only a cost. In that regard, he is being a good Keynesian when he claims that profitable ventures are a drain on the economy but paying out welfare benefits adds to wealth.

I believe this demonstrates a huge point of difference between Austrians and Keynesians. Keynesians like Krugman hold that by spending on social programs, the government is generating new wealth and can help build an entire economy upon such actions.

Austrians, on the other hand, believe that social programs must rest upon the back of an economy that has created real wealth elsewhere. Fiscally speaking, these programs are a cost, not a generator of net wealth. This is not an argument against such programs, but rather just a statement of economics.

In other words, the arguments reflect fundamental views of economics. Unfortunately, Krugman has decided to claim that since "everyone knows" that social programs on their own are wealth-generating, that the only reason one might argue that they should be cut back is because one hates poor people.

Economies are not self-generated from government spending. Cranking up the government printing presses and then directing the newly-created money to those who are politically-connected does not give the overall economy a boost. Instead, it enriches some at the expense of others.

Now, I am not jumping in with the "austerity" crowd that holds that governments must jack up tax rates in order to pay banks that took risks when they threw loans at dubious "investments." However, Krugman's "we owe it to each other" is not sound economics on any level, period. Furthermore, his view that government spending alone will boost the economy into a real recovery is just plain wrong. His is not a prescription for recovery; it is a prescription for a continuing depression.

Krugman's toxic environmentalism

Over the past several years, Paul Krugman has become extremely predictable in his columns. First, the mantra is, "Democrats good, Republicans bad," as though a decorated academic economist should have such a childish view of the world. (Anyone who disagrees with the Great One, according to Krugman, does so out of malice toward anything that is good.)

In economics, he tells us that government spending is the cure-all for all ills, and he has endorsed what essentially is a money-printing scheme by calling for the Fed to purchase U.S. Government paper directly on the primary market. (He cleverly claims that we are mistaken about "money printing," since the Fed mostly expands bank reserves. If the Fed were to directly monetize federal debt, as Krugman recommends, this WOULD be real-live printing that essentially would be no different than what has been done in places like Argentina and Bolivia.)

And then there is environmentalism. In his recent column, Krugman again presents his environmental views, which pretty much can be contained in the following statements:

• Any statistics that the Environmental Protection Agency gives us regarding costs and benefits of new environmental regulations always are true, at least when Democrats control the White House;

• All fossil fuels are evil and burning them always gives us net costs. There can be no exceptions to this viewpoint;

• All government environmental regulations are good and necessary and anyone who questions them does so ONLY because he or she wants others to suffer and die. There can be no exceptions to this viewpoint.

Krugman's latest salvo deals with the new EPA standards for mercury and other toxins released by coal-fired power plants. Obviously, mercury is bad when absorbed by humans (all of us agree on that), so anyone who might question the latest from Obama's environmental chief, Lisa Jackson, does so because he or she wants children to suffer from mercury poisoning, or at least that is what Krugman is saying.

However, Krugman claims, don't take his word for it; no, the numbers, according to the EPA, tell the story:

The new rules would also have the effect of reducing fine particle pollution, which is a known source of many health problems, from asthma to heart attacks. In fact, the benefits of reduced fine particle pollution account for most of the quantifiable gains from the new rules. The key word here is “quantifiable”: E.P.A.’s cost-benefit analysis only considers one benefit of mercury regulation, the reduced loss in future wages for children whose I.Q.’s are damaged by eating fish caught by freshwater anglers. There are without doubt many other benefits to cutting mercury emissions, but at this point the agency doesn’t know how to put a dollar figure on those benefits.

Even so, the payoff to the new rules is huge: up to $90 billion a year in benefits compared with around $10 billion a year of costs in the form of slightly higher electricity prices. This is, as David Roberts of Grist says, a very big deal.

Actually, the cost that EPA gives is about $11 billion a year, although I will say that EPA is notorious for underestimating the costs and overestimating benefits. In this one, Krugman repeats the claim that just the "quantifiable" numbers regarding supposed gained future wages from children that won't suffer from mercury poisoning is an astounding $90 billion per year. Wow. One only can wonder at what kind of methodology the EPA used to come up with this fantastic figure.

First, the agency claims it KNOWS the future IQs of American children before and after the regulations. Anyone who believes this deserves to be sold the Brooklyn Bridge. However, it gets better. Not only does EPA know IQs, but it also claims to know exactly how much money these smarter children are going to make.

This is pure nonsense, for no one, no statistician, no economist, no biologist, no one can know what these numbers were, even if the underlying premise were true, that children were going to be smarter in the future because there will be less mercury in fish. That an academic economist is quick to showcase the numbers that have been politically-created says more about what Krugman is willing to swallow than the accuracy of these numbers themselves.

I can tell readers that I had my own experience with the EPA and its magic numbers. In 1991, I was doing research for a paper on the EPA and the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and came across a claim by the EPA that acid rain was killing more than 100,000 Americans each year, so that the proposed legislation would then effectively save more than 100,000 lives annually.

The late Warren Brookes also was researching those numbers, and he asked EPA officials where they had found such astounding numbers, and he was told that they came from researchers at the American Lung Association. Brookes then asked the ALA how it got those numbers, and ALA officials told him that they came from the EPA.

That's right; numbers that environmentalists were repeating in the media, and the media was repeating to Americans, had no official source at all. No one had done any such research; the numbers were created from whole cloth, but that did not deter the EPA and its allies from trumpeting them around the country.

Without looking into the methodology, all I can say is that those mercury numbers are highly suspicious, and the notion that we would be looking at $90 billion of ANNUAL benefits is utterly fanciful, I believe.

Second, let us understand that the $10-$11 billion numbers also are well understated. The reason is that most of the costs will be applied to older power plants that do not have the official command-and-control devices that newer plants have, so the costs of compliance for these regulations will be concentrated upon those plants, not across the electric power industry as a whole. The correct application of these numbers is not to compare them to all electricity revenues, but rather the revenues that come from the electricity produced at the plants that will be affected.

Most likely, many of those plants would not produce enough revenues to justify the huge costs of compliance, so they would be shut down, and this is EXACTLY what Obama, Jackson, and Krugman want to happen. We are speaking of large portions of the U.S. electricity grid that come from the burning of "demon coal," and there is nothing more than Obama would love to see than Americans to face blackouts, brownouts, and soaring costs for electricity. (That's right; I believe Obama wants this to happen, as he is perhaps the most radical environmentalist -- at least in the Algore category -- to occupy the White House.)

What the EPA and Krugman don't include in the cost category is what happens when people have no electricity at all or are forced to pay substantially more for it. Electricity in a modern society and a modern economy is not a luxury; it is a necessity, and the government's attempts to deprive us of it only will wreak more economic havoc.

Third, what is an EPA directive on attacking "brown energy" without an appeal to the Broken Window Fallacy? Krugman's columns are full of the stuff, and, according to the EPA, this newest directive won't destroy jobs. No, it will create them. The following article notes:

American Electric, based in Columbus, Ohio, said in June that proposed EPA rules would force it to close parts or all of 11 power plants, eliminating 600 jobs. Complying with the rules would cost $8 billion, most of it on cleaning up or shutting plants that lack pollution-control equipment, it said.

The EPA says the rule would save lives and create 9,000 more jobs than would be lost, as power plants invest billions of dollars to install pollution scrubbing systems or build cleaner natural gas plants. It estimates the regulation could prevent 17,000 premature deaths from toxic emissions. (Emphasis mine)

Of course, the EPA has plenty of propagandists in both academe and the media to trumpet this nonsense that these new regulations will create "net jobs," not to mention net wealth. (George Soros is a major funder of Media Matters, and where would a vast network of lies be without his guiding hand?)

Yes, what Krugman and others want us to believe is that if we are forced to use more resources to create LESS wealth, that somehow makes us wealthier and creates more employment opportunities and, thus, creates more income streams for individuals. (Where is that bridge again?)

Krugman's column itself operates on the assumption that mercury is an unregulated toxin, as though there are no rules at all governing the release of mercury into the environment. That clearly is not true. First, mercury discharges into American waterways have been substantially reduced in the past four decades. Yes, I know, Krugman is speaking of mercury now that might enter the water via atmospheric mercury discharges, but nonetheless important strides have been made in that area.

Second, the whole issue of atmospheric discharges is fraught with false numbers. Pat Moffitt and I co-authored an article in Regulation that looks at how environmental groups, along with the EPA, have falsified numbers and claims about nitrogen being released via burning of coal. The misconduct and outright lies we uncovered were massive, and I have no doubt that the EPA is doing the same thing in regards to mercury and burning of coal.

In the end, we see a uniting of environmentalists and Keynesians claiming that wealth destruction is good for the economy, and that all we need to do is have less electricity -- and more freshly-printed money. This is a recipe for disaster.

I need to add that Paul Krugman, along with people like Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner, are high-IQ people who apparently have not had their brains addled by mercury. Nonetheless, I cannot imagine anyone who is doing more damage to the economies around the world than these Really Intelligent Men who want us to believe that wealth destruction really is wealth creation. Maybe a few doses of mercury might have done them some good.

***********************************************

I also am reporting very sad news about the recent death of Siobhan Reynolds, the most important voice against the government's war on painkillers, doctors who prescribe them, and those who suffer from chronic pain. I have posted something here.

This is more than just the loss of an ideological partner. Siobhan was my friend and she and her son recently visited us here in Finzel. I am going to miss her very, very much.

Krugman, Keynesianism, and Post-Truth Economics

In his column attacking Mitt Romney, Paul Krugman says that Romney is engaging in "post-truth politics," and maybe he is right. Mitt Romney, after all, is a politician, although I would also say that Barack Obama has been engaging in a post-truth presidency, something Krugman never will admit because, after all, he is first and foremost a partisan Democrat.

(You see, we are supposed to believe, if we read Krugman, that Obama can pour hundreds of billions of dollars into "green energy" projects like corn-based ethanol, and out of all this spending will come "clean energy" and prosperity. This literally is impossible, but being that Krugman is a "post-truth economist," I guess everything is possible in Wonderland and at Princeton.)

Keynesian economics promises us a permanent economic boom just as long as governments have the courage to spend money. (I say "economics" although economic analysis actually comes from the fact of scarcity, something that Keynesians deny, if not in word, then certainly in action.) Furthermore, as we have seen from Krugman these past few years, empirics are for people who don't believe in Keynesian Truths. Other theories must be set up for falsification, but Keynesianism is Truth in its Own Right.

Why do I say this? For more than three years, Krugman has insisted that had the Obama "stimulus" been $1.2 trillion instead of a chintzy $800 billion, we would have been in a full-blown recovery by now. How do we know that it is true? Because Keynesian economics is true, and therefore, the Keynesian "stimulus" always works, and since this stimulus did not work, the problem was that the government did not spend enough money.

This is what one calls the informal fallacy of "Begging the Question," and it provides the sandy foundations for Keynesian thought. But Krugman and the Keynesians are not satisfied with just committing informal fallacies; no, they also are champions of promoting the infamous "Broken Window Fallacy" first given us by the great Frederic Bastiat, who understood the Law of Opportunity Cost far better than anyone today at Princeton University's economics department.

And, no, government really isn't Santa Claus and, no, someone who questions the out-of-control spending in Washington is not a Scrooge. But given that we are in an age of politicized Post-Truth Economics, I guess one can score more political points if one really claims that when governments print money, they are showering us with wealth.

Now, if government would concentrate on the weather, we would have no more hurricanes....

With the latest employment numbers looking bleak, the Usual Suspects are out in droves explaining why after spending trillions of dollars, the economy continues to sink. Leading the way is Paul Krugman, who insists that this continuing downturn exists because the government has been “concentrating” on the wrong thing: budget deficits.

Krugman writes:

I don’t mean to dismiss concerns about the long-run U.S. budget picture. If you look at fiscal prospects over, say, the next 20 years, they are indeed deeply worrying, largely because of rising health-care costs. But the experience of the past two years has overwhelmingly confirmed what some of us tried to argue from the beginning: The deficits we’re running right now — deficits we should be running, because deficit spending helps support a depressed economy — are no threat at all.

And by obsessing over a nonexistent threat, Washington has been making the real problem — mass unemployment, which is eating away at the foundations of our nation — much worse.

The Keynesian explanation of what is happening is pretty straightforward, and Krugman does it on a regular basis (along with Brad DeLong and, to a lesser extent, Robert Reich). Details include:

• The economy operates in a circular motion, with consumer spending propping up business activity, which in turn provides jobs for consumers so that they can continue to spend and give themselves jobs (so that they can continue to spend);

• If marginal taxes on the wealthiest people are not high enough to confiscate much, if not most, of their income, then the rich will “hoard” the money and not spend enough, which slows and ultimately breaks what Reich calls the “virtuous circle” of spending;

• When that happens, government must raise tax rates on the “rich” (Reich calls for a return of the 70 percent marginal rates that existed in 1981) in order to get money into the hands of the “middle class” (which apparently is a creation of the State) so that the spending circle can be revived;

• At the present time, interest rates are very low, which means that the economy is in a “liquidity trap” in which the only way that the spending circle can move is via more government spending, which should be financed by borrowing, and since interest rates are low, the borrowed money essentially is “free;”

• If a person makes a point of discussion that deviates from what has been presented, that person is motivated by hatred of the unemployed and wants people to lose their jobs and wants the economy to tank;

• Thus, in the end, the debate on Keynesian “solutions” ultimately is a debate on good and evil. Those who support Keynesianism are “good” and those who disagree are evil.

In the numerous columns and blog posts Krugman has written in the past few months, the theme is consistent: there can be no intellectual disagreement with Keynesian analysis because the truth of the Keynesian position is self-evident. Anything else is evil and delusional. For example, the “Regime Uncertainty” position that Robert Higgs and others have taken is nothing more than a figment of one’s imagination:

O.K., I know what the usual suspects will say — namely, that fears of regulation and higher taxes are holding businesses back. But this is just a right-wing fantasy. (Emphasis mine) Multiple surveys have shown that lack of demand — a lack that is being exacerbated by government cutbacks — is the overwhelming problem businesses face, with regulation and taxes barely even in the picture.

For example, when McClatchy Newspapers recently canvassed a random selection of small-business owners to find out what was hurting them, not a single one complained about regulation of his or her industry, and few complained much about taxes. And did I mention that profits after taxes, as a share of national income, are at record levels?

So short-run deficits aren’t a problem; lack of demand is, and spending cuts are making things much worse. Maybe it’s time to change course?

While all of this seems to be self-evident to Krugman, there are some important things that are left out. The first is the role of the economist, who is supposed to be able to look beyond the rhetoric and the “man on the street” view that ultimately leads to the “Broken Window Fallacy.” For example, the marginalist position on value is one that is not easily seen or understood by the typical layperson, who is more likely to believe that the value of a final product is determined by its cost of production.

The second is that the typical small business owner is not going to be able to relate how government “job-saving” programs like the subsidizing of corn-based ethanol or the bailout of General Motors has diverted resources from productive to unproductive uses. Instead, the business owner is going to see how people directly are purchasing products and what it costs to make them, and then make decisions from that vantage point.

As I said before, economists are supposed to be able to take in the whole picture, or to contemplate not only what is “seen,” but also what is “unseen,” to quote Frederic Bastiat. In other words, one should expect a journalist to concentrate on what is “seen,” and to miss the aspects of the larger picture. That is excusable, even if it is irritating.

However, it is unexcusable for an economist, and especially one who has the stature of a winner of the Nobel Prize, to concentrate only on what is seen and not only to ignore those important things not seen, but then to personally attack other economists who do their real duties to examine the entire picture and declare that their motivation for doing so is that they are evil and want Americans to lose their jobs.

The truth is that Krugman’s argument is a red herring; had the Obama administration and Congress done nothing but talk about jobs and launch one employment program after another, the rate of joblessness still would be high, and the fiscal picture of this government and this country would be as bad as it is now. The U.S. economy is not doing poorly because of lack of “concentration” by government officials, but because the government stands in the way of an economic recovery.

By bailing out the banks, by bailing out companies, by spending at record levels, and by holding down interest rates, the U.S. Government is preventing resources from moving from lower-valued to higher-valued uses. Furthermore, the government through political intimidation (see the recent raid on Gibson Guitars) and hostile rhetoric against firms that are legitimately profitable is sending the message that private enterprise is the enemy that ultimately must be replaced by state-sponsored enterprise.

There is another problem to this “oversight” issue, and that is the promotion of the wrong view of a “job” itself. As I read the Progressives on jobs, I have come to realize that they (and that includes “economists” such as Krugman) see the “job” solely as a transmission mechanism for income and, therefore, spending.

In other words, the actual services that one provides are irrelevant in and of themselves, or at best are secondary to the income that those providing them receive for their work. In that view, an economy is just one big circle of spending, with “spending” itself taking on a meaning that is quite removed from the actions and desires of consumers.

Spending, according to the Keynesians, is rather impersonal, and it cannot be tied to purposeful behavior by individuals. The value of “spending” is not that individuals are able to purchase goods and services in order to meet their needs, but instead is a mechanism that keeps that “virtuous circle” known as an “economy” moving in the “right” direction.

This is not economics; it is a mechanistic view of the world that ignores individual preferences and the actual movement of resources and factors of production. Unfortunately, people like Krugman add to the tragedy by claiming that those who look to actual economic explanations of this continuing saga by employing the tools of economic analysis do so because they are both stupid and evil. When the “leading lights” of modern academic economics claim that the employment of historically-accepted intellectual instruments is in itself “evil,” then one must wonder about the very future of this discipline.

Bob Murphy on the Keynesians and Bastiat's "Broken Window Fallacy"

Bob Murphy has written an article dealing with how Keynesians are pushing back against the accusations that they are engaging in economic fallacies, or, to be specific, engaging Bastiat's famous fallacy. As usual, it is worth reading.

Now, Bob is fair to Krugman in that he does not say that Krugman wants war, alien invasions, or even the entire East Coast to be devastated by earthquakes and storms. Nonetheless, Murphy writes:

As I said earlier, the Keynesians lately have been launching a counterattack on the charge that they are committing the broken-window fallacy. One of their responses is to claim that the conservative/libertarian critics are ignoring the distinction between wealth and employment, and that they are unwittingly assuming that there is full employment (i.e., that there are no "idle resources").

Sympathetic onlookers have jumped into the debate, claiming that Bastiat could have been wrong. After all, suppose a hurricane came along and struck a community that initially had a large number of unemployed construction workers. Who would deny that the hurricane might (under the right circumstances) actually lead to more employment and a higher "gross domestic product" as it is currently measured?

Bob's answer is instructive, and I also believe that Keynesians cannot refute it, at least honestly.

***********************

On another note, Krugman's Princeton colleague Alan B. Krueger has been named the chairman of President Obama's economic advisers. I have commentary here.

NYC's "stimulus" plan falls flat: Irene is a dud

So, it looks as though Paul Krugman will survive the Storm of the Century, and one only wishes that the political careers of Michael Bloomberg, Chris Christie, Janet Napolitano, and Barack "I'm in Charge of Hurricane Central" Obama could take the hit that the Big Apple was supposed to take.

So, the newsies don't get their disaster, the politicians look like fools instead of heroes, and New York doesn't have enough broken windows to stimulate the economy. How sad.

The creator of the fake Krugman statement confesses!!

So, the perpetrator of the Hoax has come clean! One wonders if the Obama administration's Department of (In)Justice will come after him in the way they have gone after S&P for downgrading U.S. paper. (Yeah, the DO(In)J has another explanation, but politics is politics.

I do find it interesting that Krugman DID classify the earthquake and tsunami in Japan as possibly being "expansionary" events, so while he did not make the statements on the U.S. earthquake, nonetheless he has said similar things elsewhere. Say what you want, but Paul Krugman IS a practitioner of the Broken Window Fallacy.

No, I don't support forgeries, although I do remember that a lot of Democrats and assorted lefties did not condemn the use of forged documents against President Bush by CBS News and Dan "The Frequency" Rather in 2004. In other words, for some people, if a forgery is politically useful, then it is OK.

It was only 5.9. Blame the Bond Vigilantes!! Too Small!

[Update]: Krugman claims that this comment is a forgery. Maybe it is, but it is no more ridiculous than his "space aliens" comment.

Hey, forget the space aliens! We now have a new economic stimulus package: the earthquake!

Actually, no. It was too small, just like the "stimulus," darn it! Paul Krugman has given us the Ultimate Broken Window Fallacy post on Google about yesterday's earthquake (which I admit we did NOT feel here in Riga):

"People on Twitter might be joking, but in all seriousness, we would see a bigger boost in spending and hence economic growth if the earthquake had done more damage."

Now, if we only could get the space aliens to induce and earthquake, we all could get rich!!

Krugman and "economic fallacies"

With the job numbers today looking dismal, I figured that the Paul Krugman would call for more borrowing and spending, and he did not disappoint. However, as an added bonus, Krugman also declares certain things to be "economic fallacies," which not only turns upside down any meaning of "economics," but also is built upon that Mother of All Economic Fallacies, the "Fallacy of the Broken Window."

Krugman writes:

One striking example of this rightward shift came in last weekend’s presidential address, in which Mr. Obama had this to say about the economics of the budget: “Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.”

That’s three of the right’s favorite economic fallacies in just two sentences. No, the government shouldn’t budget the way families do; on the contrary, trying to balance the budget in times of economic distress is a recipe for deepening the slump. Spending cuts right now wouldn’t “put the economy on sounder footing.” They would reduce growth and raise unemployment. And last but not least, businesses aren’t holding back because they lack confidence in government policies; they’re holding back because they don’t have enough customers — a problem that would be made worse, not better, by short-term spending cuts.

Notice what Krugman is saying: Government magically can do away with opportunity cost by spending. (Yes, I know, his argument is that government spending will transform "idle resources" and then give the economy "traction" to move on its own.)

Furthermore, he is not listing anything close to an "economic fallacy." Instead, he is dealing with policy issues, while having economic implications, are not economic theories themselves. An "economic fallacy" deals with a violation of either premises or what we might call a "law" of economics.

Perhaps the most famous of the fallacies is about which Frederic Bastiat wrote in "What is seen, and what is not seen" when he described the view that "broken windows" are necessary to keep an economy going:

Have you ever been witness to the fury of that solid citizen, James Goodfellow, when his incorrigible son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at this spectacle, certainly you must also have observed that the onlookers, even if there are as many as thirty of them, seem with one accord to offer the unfortunate owner the selfsame consolation: "It's an ill wind that blows nobody some good. Such accidents keep industry going. Everybody has to make a living. What would become of the glaziers if no one ever broke a window?"

Now, this formula of condolence contains a whole theory that it is a good idea for us to expose, flagrante delicto, in this very simple case, since it is exactly the same as that which, unfortunately, underlies most of our economic institutions.

Suppose that it will cost six francs to repair the damage. If you mean that the accident gives six francs' worth of encouragement to the aforesaid industry, I agree. I do not contest it in any way; your reasoning is correct. The glazier will come, do his job, receive six francs, congratulate himself, and bless in his heart the careless child. That is what is seen.

But if, by way of deduction, you conclude, as happens only too often, that it is good to break windows, that it helps to circulate money, that it results in encouraging industry in general, I am obliged to cry out: That will never do! Your theory stops at what is seen. It does not take account of what is not seen.

It is not seen that, since our citizen has spent six francs for one thing, he will not be able to spend them for another. It is not seen that if he had not had a windowpane to replace, he would have replaced, for example, his worn-out shoes or added another book to his library. In brief, he would have put his six francs to some use or other for which he will not now have them.

What Krugman advocates, of course, is something like the "Broken Window Fallacy" (all in the name of claiming that the BWF is a fallacy in itself), for unless government spending via taxation, monetary creation, and borrowing can create wealth where there was none before, government simply is transferring resources or it is blocking the transference of resources from lower-valued to higher-valued uses.

Now, it is true that if government cuts spending, it will create more unemployment in the short run, but to Krugman, there only is a short run. Because the Keynesian viewpoint holds that resources (for economic purposes) are homogeneous, it does not matter where spending is directed, just as long as "new jobs" are created.

Yet, it DOES matter where spending is directed and it is not a fallacy to emphasize that point. For the past three years, the government has engaged in policies of bailouts, "stimulus" spending, new regulations, and throwing huge amounts of money at "green" energy projects, and we are further away from an economic recovery than when we started.

Yes, Krugman can claim that government spending is falling and that the government already is engaging in "austerity." That is nonsense, but nonsense is what prevails in Washington.

Krugman joins the "Broken Window Fallacy" crowd

I am in New York for a conference, but I will share this gem from Paul Krugman's recent blog post in which he claims that the tragedy and recovery in Japan likely will be "expansionary." Yes, we see yet another "economist" become a caricature of the people who claimed that the hoodlum who broke the baker's window described in Henry Hazlitt's classic Economics in One Lesson.

As Hazlitt explains in the first chapter, the "Broken Window Fallacy" is the central fallacy that we see in one form or another, and from what I see, Krugman is the biggest advocate of this fallacy. Hey, I know. We're in a "liquidity trap," so the world is turned upside down. Right?