The Amnesia Economist

One of the supposed rules for New York Times columnists is that they not endorse candidates or be overly politically partisan in what they write. That is a howler, of course, as the entire newspaper is little more than the house organ for the "respectable" Left in the Democratic Party. This is a newspaper, of course, that prattles on about how DNA "exonerates" people charged with certain crimes, but was absolutely certain in the Duke Lacrosse Case that DNA did not matter at all.

(The paper wanted us to believe that three drunken young men could rape, beat, and ejaculate on a woman for 30 minutes in a tiny bathroom, leave in a hurry without cleaning up anything, use no chemicals to eradicate the mess, and yet not leave one speck of DNA. Instead, the paper insisted, they used what only could be described as a "magic towel" that would make her DNA disappear, not collect the DNA of two of the "rapists," but have only the DNA of one person. But, according to the self-proclaimed "Newspaper of Record," this was "proof" of a rape.)

I make this lengthy point about the NYT because this is a paper that openly and arrogantly contradicts nature itself, as the people who write for the paper, including the vast majority of its columnists, believe that laws of time and space do not apply to them. That makes them free to rewrite history and declare themselves to be akin to the Masters of the Universe.

So it is with Paul Krugman, who this week calls Mitt Romney the "Amnesia Candidate" because Romney dares hold Barack Obama's policies as being responsible for there not being any real economic recovery. Why everyone at the NYT and Princeton KNOWS that EVERYTHING is the fault of George W. Bush BECAUSE HE CUT THE TOP INCOME TAX RATE FROM 39.6 PERCENT TO 35 PERCENT. Yes, anyone who knows ANYTHING about economics knows that slightly lowering income tax rates will cause massive unemployment, or that least that is what Krugman wants us to believe.

(And, please note that Krugman on numerous occasions has claimed that cutting tax rates has been a major cause of the downturn because, as every good Keynesian knows, government always spends more wisely than individuals can and will spend for themselves.)

At the present time, I am working on a project about the Great Depression and today, I will be writing about Herbert Hoover's response to the stock market crash of 1929 and beyond. In my research, I came upon this gem from Krugman. First, the Hoover quote:

It cannot be borrowed without impairment of the credit of the National Government and thus destroy that confidence upon which our whole system depends. It is unthinkable that the Government of the United States should resort to the printing press and the issuance of fiat currency as provided in the bill which passed the House at the last session of Congress under the leadership of the Democratic vice presidential candidate. Such an act of moral bankruptcy would depreciate and might ultimately destroy the value of every dollar in the United States.

Then, Krugman declares:

This should (but won’t) dispel the myth that Hoover was some kind of proto-Keynesian. But look,also, at how closely Hoover’s line of argument follows that of Very Serious People today.

 Yes, one quote from Hoover means that Hoover never called a conference of business and labor leaders in 1929 and demanded that they keep prices and wages high no matter what was happening in the economy. Hoover enthusiastically signed the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Tariff, despite receiving a letter signed by 1,000 economists begging him to veto it.

Hoover never pushed through massive public works projects and Guy Rexford Tugwell, a close adviser to Franklin Roosevelt, never declared, "We didn’t admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.” Hoover did not resurrect the War Finance Corporation to become the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (which today exists as the Small Business Administration) to make massive loans to failing companies. (After all, Hoover was a "liquidationist" and wanted the entire economy of the USA to go under so he could support the principles of "laissez-faire.")

Of course, Hoover was a True Believer in "laissez-faire" and he never was a Progressive, although he had convened a conference in 1921 on business cycles, and at the conference he did not declare that the standard government approach to a downturn (not to intervene) was outdated and that government needed to expand credit and engage in public works programs. 

Economist Steven Horowitz (who did actual research, not look for a stray quote from Hoover) did not write:

Politicians and pundits portray Herbert Hoover as a defender of laissez faire governance whose dogmatic commitment to small government led him to stand by and do nothing while the economy collapsed in the wake of the stock market crash in 1929. In fact, Hoover had long been a critic of laissez faire. As president, he doubled federal spending in real terms in four years. He also used government to prop up wages, restricted immigration, signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff, raised taxes, and created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation — all interventionist measures and not laissez faire. Unlike many Democrats today, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's advisers knew that Hoover had started the New Deal. One of them wrote, "When we all burst into Washington...we found every essential idea [of the New Deal] enacted in the 100-day Congress in the Hoover administration itself."

When Herbert Hoover returned to the USA after his tour of Europe following World War I, he did not outline a new economic and social "vision" for the country that so excited Progressives that "Louis Brandeis, Herbert Croly of the New Republic, Colonel Edward M. House, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and other prominent Democrats for a while boomed Hoover for the presidency."

You see, the facts about Herbert Hoover are quite inconvenient when one wishes to portray him as something he clearly was not. So, one takes one quote from Hoover to "prove" that nothing else that historians have written about him is true. After all, when one is trying to promote a myth, a little amnesia cannot hurt.

Like the writers at the NYT during the lacrosse case, Krugman knows that if he continues to make untrue declarations, few readers will do fact-checking. After all, the Duke boys were white and "privileged," so they MUST have raped Crystal Mangum. 

Likewise, Hoover's entire career was devoted to Progressive causes and the paper trail is long, but when Paul Krugman tosses all of the facts down the Orwellian Memory Hole, then he must be right because, after all, he is a decorated and famous economist.

Krugman rewrites history (again)

One of the most famous lines said by anyone in the Herbert Hoover administration was what Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon supposedly told his boss: “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate.” Oh, and he said one other thing: "Purge the rottenness out of the system."

In his column today, Paul Krugman takes that quote and decides to rewrite history. True, Krugman is famous for that, as he gives us several howlers per week, but this one is important because not only does Krugman give us a false accounting of history then, he makes an equally-spurious claim for today.

The first and most important thing to remember (and something Krugman always seems to leave out -- not surprisingly) is that Hoover brags that he rejected Mellon's advice. This is important, because Krugman always presents that quote as an official policy of the Hoover administration when, as Hoover notes in his memoirs, he not only refused to follow Mellon's suggestion but he also tried actively to keep the liquidation from happening.

My sense is that Krugman ignores that fact because it does not fit into his chain of events, and because he wants to claim that the Republicans, who apparently want to cut all of $61 billion from a $3.5 TRILLION federal budget are trying to engage in what he calls Mellon-style austerity:

But never mind the lessons of history, or events unfolding across the Atlantic: Republicans are now fully committed to the doctrine that we must destroy employment in order to save it.

And Democrats are offering little pushback. The White House, in particular, has effectively surrendered in the war of ideas; it no longer even tries to make the case against sharp spending cuts in the face of high unemployment.

So that’s the state of policy debate in the world’s greatest nation: one party has embraced 80-year-old economic fallacies, while the other has lost the will to fight. And American families will pay the price.

Now, I am not sure how a tiny proposed cut in spending translates to "austerity," but like Blutarsky in "Animal House" who asked his frat brothers if the Americans quit "when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor," Krugman is on a roll.

However, I think for all his botching of history, Krugman does perform a useful function here, and that is to ask the question (in his own, nasty way, of course) as to the larger issue underlying debate about boom and bust. Are we dealing with simple idle resources that need to be jump-started via an infusion of government spending, or are we dealing with malinvested resources that need either to be liquidated or transferred to other uses?

This is not an idle question, for I believe it is at the heart of all of Krugman's anti-"austerity" diatribes. Krugman clearly believes that the problem is that of idle resources; people stopped spending, and the only way to get the economy moving again is to bring in wads of new government spending that will give the economy "traction" and continue the circular process.

To Krugman, a boom is just that: a boom. It can and should be continued by all means possible, including policies of massive borrowing, spending, and, yes, creation of new money. (As Krugman claims in The Return of Depression Economics, many economic problems can be solved simply by printing money, and that printing money creates what he calls "a free lunch.")

In that world, all factors of production, economically speaking, are homogeneous. It does not matter from what direction the spending comes, as everything moves in the same way. If a boom is touched off by something like the housing bubble, it creates the very kind of mix of capital and labor that a huge infusion of government spending would produce.

Should that be the actual situation, then Krugman is correct and the way to long-term prosperity is for government to print and spend. Money in that view would be nothing more than a tool used by government to manipulate events, and as long as the "correct" people are in political power, such policies will create a second-best nirvana.

The Austrian position, however, is much different. Austrians hold that factors of production are heterogeneous, and that the mix of capital created during a credit-fed boom cannot be sustained, even if the government throws in new spending measures after new measures. In fact, Austrians believe that the very wave of spending that Krugman demands government do only exacerbates the situation, as it only deepens the unsustainable capital structures and creates even more malinvestments. That is the heart of the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle (ATBC).

I'm not about to claim that the "austerity" measures of what Krugman speaks are based upon the ATBC or that finance ministers across the globe suddenly have embraced Austrian Economics. Nonetheless, I will say that until the economy can deal with the very real malinvestments that piled up during the last 20 years, we are doomed to have a low-growth economy with high unemployment.

This is the Austrian critique in a nutshell. As for Krugman's claims that the Republicans suddenly have become the Second Coming of Andrew Mellon, I believe that is, to put it mildly, a bit of hyperbole. But, Krugman never would engage in that kind of rhetorical fallacy, would he?

The Austerity Bogey

I do hope that Paul Krugman practices what he preaches, and does not have a savings account and maxes himself on credit cards. If he saves any of his money, then he really is an Enemy of the People.

The guy who recently claimed that the U.S. Government really didn't go on a spending spree now says that the British Government is channeling Andrew Mellon. I think it is important that we understand a couple of things: first, even if Britain or the U.S. Government will not be raising spending as much as Krugman claims they should be doing, nonetheless both countries are characterized by bloated public sectors.

Second, Herbert Hoover did not take Mellon's advice to "liquidate the farmers" and "purge the rottenness out of the system." This is a quote that people like Krugman are fond of laying out, but all Mellon was saying was that the government cannot and should not prop up malinvestments, and needed to let the markets take their courses. Contra Krugman, that is what happened in 1921, and the economy recovered nicely. (Notice that Krugman never speaks of that particular recession because he can't spin a Keynesian tale out of the recovery.)

Given that Krugman generally rewrites history, I find this quote to be amusing. Krugman writes:

The operative word here should, however, be “eventually.” Fiscal austerity will depress the economy further unless it can be offset by a fall in interest rates. Right now, interest rates in Britain, as in America, are already very low, with little room to fall further. The sensible thing, then, is to devise a plan for putting the nation’s fiscal house in order, while waiting until a solid economic recovery is under way before wielding the ax.

But trendy fashion, almost by definition, isn’t sensible — and the British government seems determined to ignore the lessons of history.

Both the new British budget announced on Wednesday and the rhetoric that accompanied the announcement might have come straight from the desk of Andrew Mellon, the Treasury secretary who told President Herbert Hoover to fight the Depression by liquidating the farmers, liquidating the workers, and driving down wages. Or if you prefer more British precedents, it echoes the Snowden budget of 1931, which tried to restore confidence but ended up deepening the economic crisis.

The British government’s plan is bold, say the pundits — and so it is. But it boldly goes in exactly the wrong direction. It would cut government employment by 490,000 workers — the equivalent of almost three million layoffs in the United States — at a time when the private sector is in no position to provide alternative employment. It would slash spending at a time when private demand isn’t at all ready to take up the slack.

From where does the British Government get all of those resources that Krugman claims it should be spending? Well, in Wonderland, governments crank up the printing press and - Voila! - create wealth. Krugman never does seem to grasp the simple fact that when governments spend, they are using real resources that have to come from somewhere; he really does believe that borrowing and printing money is the economic equivalent of serious private investment.

There is one more thing. I never have known politicians not to want to spend, spend, and spend some more. The notion that politicians are stingy with other people's money is laughable, and the notion that the only thing saving us from utter destruction is government's ability to borrow and print is a joke, a sick joke, but a joke, nonetheless.

Krugman and the Hoover Fallacies

One of the economic myths that Paul Krugman, along with most politicians, journalists, and academics, promotes is the outright lie that Herbert Hoover organized his presidency to promote free market economics. Furthermore, he tells us (ad nauseum) that during the last three years of his presidency, Hoover did nothing to stop the Great Depression, leaving it up to Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal to mitigate the effects of the downturn.

Thus, when Krugman refers to someone as a "Herbert Hoover," he is saying that he or she is not embracing the Keynesian paradigm and, instead, claims that we must "be responsible" in not spending beyond our means. Yes, Krugman believes that such "responsible" behavior actually is irresponsible, at least during a depression.

Thus, in his recent blog post, "Fifty-One Herbert Hoovers," Krugman claims that spending cuts by state and local governments are dragging down the economy:

...I think it’s fair to say that state and local cuts largely offset federal stimulus.

And David Broder thinks this is a good thing, that Washington should be more like the states.

What amazes me is that Broder doesn’t even seem to be aware that there’s an argument on the other side, let alone that most economists are dismayed by the effects of fiscal austerity. If Broder is a guide to Beltway conventional wisdom — which he usually is — we’ve got a big problem. (Emphasis mine)

Krugman even has a graph that "proves" his point:



First, Krugman is more correct than he realizes, if he claims that the states are emulating Hoover. Murray N. Rothbard (a much better economist than Krugman could claim to be) laid out Hoover's many government interventions in his classic, America's Great Depression. However, I don't think that is what Krugman wants us to believe.

Second, Krugman seems to be living in Wonderland if he believes that state and local governments can spend money they don't have. (This is why he is demanding that the federal government print a lot of money and give it to the states.) Third, if one looks at the graph, one can see that the economy recovered after the 2001 recession when state spending was down. (No doubt, Krugman will claim that state and federal spending, which increased during the recession of 2001, was the reason for the recovery.)

Now, the "recovery" after 2001 turned out to be a faux recovery, or what I called a "boomlet," which I predicted would end in a worse downturn. However, to Krugman, boom conditions can last forever, just as long as government provides enough "free" money to keep the punchbowl filled. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

There is another point as well. One of the reasons that we are not seeing a real recovery (and only one of the many reasons) is that state governments have become hostages of public employee unions. (Steven Greenhut has written a great book on this subject, appropriately called Plunder.)

State spending has become extremely voracious, and states are raising taxes left and right to fund their generous pensions and pay that unions extracted when the economy seemed to be in better shape. The notion that states raise even more taxes to continue spending at a drunken rate is irresponsible, and the notion that most economists believe that such actions would be good for the economy is pretty pathetic. If most economists believe this nonsense, then the academic profession is in worse shape than I had thought.

Note: I am blogging from the Austrian Scholars Conference at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama.