Should capital gains tax rates reflect ordinary income tax rates? Maybe in Wonderland

[Update]: In his column today, Krugman continues the theme that capital gains taxes should be higher, although he does not say HOW high. His reference toward Ronald Reagan invokes another logical fallacy, as though whatever Reagan did regarding taxes always should be acceptable to people who hold to free-market principles.

Krugman also fallaciously assumes that wealthy people pay ONLY 15 percent of their entire income in taxes. However, this interesting chart appeared today in the Wall Street Journal that lists ALL federal taxes paid by people in different income groups, and it tells a much different story. (Of course, Krugman is well-known for making up history, whether it be tax or regulation history. One might expect such behavior from a political operative.)

Now, why would Krugman try to be deceptive here? Why is Krugman nearly always deceptive? It is because he has traded whatever academic integrity he had to be a political operative. It is one thing to argue about tax rates and quite another to present a false picture of a situation -- when accurate information is available. [End Update]

In his post on the post-war history of capital gains taxes, Paul Krugman points out that the rates have been higher in the past than they are now. That obviously is true, but it opens up other arguments. For example, he declares this:

Here’s how Romney’s low taxes will be defended by smarter conservatives (the less smart ones will just shout “class warfare”): they’ll claim that there are compelling reasons to have low taxes on capital gains, and that there is therefore nothing wrong with having very high-income people paying lower tax rates than the middle class.

Like Barack Obama, he is slippery with his language, for even with lower rates, people who gain most of their income via investment are going to pay significantly higher amounts in taxes than others. Unfortunately, in a speech the other day, Obama first mentioned tax rates and then he claimed that the wealthy thus pay "lower taxes" than do people in the middle class. That simply is false, but a president who claims that paying unemployment benefits will "create more jobs" than the construction of an oil pipeline (and, by insinuation, more wealth) simply is delusional about the economy. Keynesianism will do that to people. The U.S. economy did well relative to the rest of the world (which was recovering from World War II) at this time, so does Krugman also believe, in the name of "fairness," that the capital gains rates also should have been 91 percent? I don't know, but I don't see, using his own logic, how he can argue against that modest proposal.

In fact, during that time, even some of the LOWEST rates were higher than 25 percent or slightly under 25 percent. Thus, will Krugman and Obama complain that the capital gains rates in the 1950s were unjust because they were lower than tax rates that people earning small incomes were paying? I don't know, although it seems that Krugman seems to be fixated on the current situation while claiming that the 1950s were prosperous years, and I suspect he believes that the high tax rates were part of the reason for the prosperity.

(He certainly has not made any statements in public to the contrary except to tell me in a 2004 Q&A at the Southern Economic Association meetings that the 70 percent rates of 1980 were "insane." I have not seen him making any similar statements in any of his writings since then.)

If Paul Krugman believes that capital gains taxes always should be at the top rate, since it would be unfair for investors to pay the same rates (or less) than the middle class, perhaps we need to look at the various marginal rates of income taxation to see if Krugman is trying to pull a fast one. For example, during the time in the 1950s when capital gains rates were 25 percent, the top income tax rate in the USA was 91 percent.

The following table that lists inflation-adjusted income tax brackets since 1913 might make things a bit more clear:

Partial History of Marginal Income Tax Rates Adjusted for Inflation
	Income	First	Top Bracket
Year	Brackets	Bracket	Rate	Income	Adj. 2011	Comment
1913	7	1%	7%	$500,000	$11.3M	First permanent income tax
1917	21	2%	67%	$2,000,000	$35M	World War I financing
1925	23	1.5%	25%	$100,000	$1.28M	Post war reductions
1932	55	4%	63%	$1,000,000	$16.4M	Depression era
1936	31	4%	79%	$5,000,000	$80.7M
1941	32	10%	81%	$5,000,000	$76.3M	World War II
1942	24	19%	88%	$200,000	$2.75M	Revenue Act of 1942
1944	24	23%	94%	$200,000	$2.54M	Individual Income Tax Act of 1944
1946	24	20%	91%	$200,000	$2.30M
1954	24	20%	91%	$200,000	$1.67M
1964	26	16%	77%	$400,000	$2.85M	Tax reduction during Vietnam war
1965	25	14%	70%	$200,000	$1.42M
1981	16	14%	70%	$212,000	$532k	Reagan era tax cuts
1982	14	12%	50%	$106,000	$199k	"
1987	5	11%	38.5%	$90,000	$178k	"
1988	2	15%	28%	$29,750	$56k	"
1991	3	15%	31%	$82,150	$135k
1993	5	15%	39.6%	$250,000	$388k
2003	6	10%	35%	$311,950	$380k	Bush era tax cuts
2011	6	10%	35%	$379,150	$379k

In the end, I don't think Krugman is making much of an argument. For example, as one who was in college in the early 1970s and then being in the workplace for more than half the decade, the 40 percent capital gains rates also coincided with an era of high inflation and high unemployment. If Krugman believes that capital gains rates should reflect normal income tax rates, then he is saying that we need 40 percent capital gains rates again.

For that matter, the 1970s were a time of economic stagnation, not unbridled prosperity, as Krugman wants us to believe. He might hate the 1980s, but that also was a time of huge private investments in the high-tech sector and telecommunications, and Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal has an excellent column about that era, including the corporate raiders that Krugman claims did so much damage. The article deals with the actual state of business entrepreneurship at that time, something that Krugman is incapable of understanding, since all of his economic analysis is done with the crude aggregates of the Keynesian models, and there is no way to fit entrepreneurship into those contraptions.

There is a larger issue, however, and that is private investment as a whole. Krugman, being a good Keynesian, holds that economically speaking, government "investment" is just as good as private investment, so it doesn't matter if the government is building nuclear weapons or a farmer is growing crops. If the GDP numbers of both are equal, then both are equal in their wealth component.

Is this a ridiculous example, since even Krugman would admit we cannot eat nuclear weapons? In one way, yes, but in the Keynesian structure, it is not ridiculous. And given that Krugman has given us his "confidence fairy" ditty numerous times, it is clear that he does not hold private investment to be anything but another form of spending, and if government can spend in equal amounts, then it is just as well and perhaps better, since in Wonderland, State Power equals freedom and prosperity.

Krugman: Government debt is no burden because "we owe it to ourselves"

In his latest missive, "Nobody Understands Debt," Paul Krugman proves that he does not know debt, or at least government debt, either. While there is much to dislike in the column, I am going to deal with his claim that government debt is different because it is "money we owe to ourselves."

Now,I will agree with Krugman that government debt is different than typical "family debt," but not for the reasons he gives. Krugman writes:

First, families have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t — all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base. The debt from World War II was never repaid; it just became increasingly irrelevant as the U.S. economy grew, and with it the income subject to taxation.

Second — and this is the point almost nobody seems to get — an over-borrowed family owes money to someone else; U.S. debt is, to a large extent, money we owe to ourselves. (Emphasis mine)

Krugman's reasoning, however, can apply to private debt as well, since he decides to use collective terms. In the case of private debt, individuals borrow from banks or other individuals, and bank loans are created by individual deposits. Therefore, when individuals don't pay back their debt, someone has to take a haircut.

Government loan guarantees tend to cloud this picture, but even when a guaranteed loan falls into default, individuals -- taxpayers and consumers -- are forced to give up some of their real income either through taxation or inflation. There really is not a free lunch, even if Krugman wants to claim there is.

(Because of government loan guarantees -- and deposit "insurance" falls into this category -- a lot of moral hazard is built into the private lending system. Defenders of this system say that it promotes worthy "investments" -- such as "green energy" -- that would not be funded otherwise by private lending, while critics such as the Austrians say that it promotes malinvestments and reckless behavior by lenders that ultimately leads to a crisis.)

Most Americans borrow from other Americans, so using the standards for public debt that Krugman has given, it would seem that most private lending also involves money "we owe to ourselves." One is not free to apply a collective term to government and then claim that it is not applicable to private activity, given there is nothing magical about government that can create a "collective" by fiat.

After all, individuals and institutions hold government debt, and if Krugman is claiming that an individual is not harmed when he or she lends money to the government and is not paid back, then he is dead wrong. (In other words, it is business as usual.)

Adding to that point, Murray Rothbard writes:

The ingenious slogan that the public debt does not matter because “we owe it to ourselves” is clearly absurd. The crucial question is: Who is the “we” and who are the “ourselves”? Analysis of the world must be individualistic and not holistic. Certain people owe money to certain other people, and it is precisely this fact that makes the borrowing as well as the taxing process important. For we might just as well say that taxes are unimportant for the same reason.

Even Krugman does admit that there can be problems with debt:

Now, the fact that federal debt isn’t at all like a mortgage on America’s future doesn’t mean that the debt is harmless. Taxes must be levied to pay the interest, and you don’t have to be a right-wing ideologue to concede that taxes impose some cost on the economy, if nothing else by causing a diversion of resources away from productive activities into tax avoidance and evasion. But these costs are a lot less dramatic than the analogy with an overindebted family might suggest.

And that’s why nations with stable, responsible governments — that is, governments that are willing to impose modestly higher taxes when the situation warrants it — have historically been able to live with much higher levels of debt than today’s conventional wisdom would lead you to believe. Britain, in particular, has had debt exceeding 100 percent of G.D.P. for 81 of the last 170 years. When Keynes was writing about the need to spend your way out of a depression, Britain was deeper in debt than any advanced nation today, with the exception of Japan.

In other words, more government debt is good when government is trying to "spend (our) way out of a depression," but the act of more borrowing does have its opportunity costs, but the costs are not all that great, or at least Krugman assures us of that. Of course, if the problem becomes too great, then the Federal Reserve, through the workings of "clever lawyers," can find a way to directly purchase U.S. Government debt on the primary "market," which Krugman touts as a "solution." (One wonders why Krugman does not recommend what would be the Ultimate Fix to our problems to have the Fed purchase ALL government bonds, and that the bonds encompass ALL federal spending. Then the Fed could forgive the debt, monetize everything, and the government would have limitless funds to spend and to bring us into prosperity.)

In the Keynesian world, there is no opportunity cost. As Keynes wrote in 1943, credit expansion by the central bank performs the "miracle" of "turning stones into bread." Because Keynesians believe that a market economy is destined to implode because individuals save some of their income, not spending all of it instantly, it is up to government, to paraphrase Krugman, to "fill the hole" left by the loss of private spending.

There is one more issue to cover, and that is my earlier statement in which I agreed with Krugman that government debt was "different" than private debt, but for different reasons. In this area, I turn to Rothbard:

The public debt transaction, then, is very different from private debt. Instead of a low-time preference creditor exchanging money for an IOU from a high-time preference debtor, the government now receives money from creditors, both parties realizing that the money will be paid back not out of the pockets or the hides of the politicians and bureaucrats, but out of the looted wallets and purses of the hapless taxpayers, the subjects of the state. The government gets the money by tax-coercion; and the public creditors, far from being innocents, know full well that their proceeds will come out of that selfsame coercion. In short, public creditors are willing to hand over money to the government now in order to receive a share of tax loot in the future. This is the opposite of a free market, or a genuinely voluntary transaction. Both parties are immorally contracting to participate in the violation of the property rights of citizens in the future. Both parties, therefore, are making agreements about other people's property, and both deserve the back of our hand. The public credit transaction is not a genuine contract that need be considered sacrosanct, any more than robbers parceling out their shares of loot in advance should be treated as some sort of sanctified contract.

Any melding of public debt into a private transaction must rest on the common but absurd notion that taxation is really "voluntary," and that whenever the government does anything, "we" are willingly doing it. This convenient myth was wittily and trenchantly disposed of by the great economist Joseph Schumpeter: "The theory which construes taxes on the analogy of club dues or of the purchases of, say, a doctor only proves how far removed this part of the social sciences is from scientific habits of mind."

Rothbard was writing in favor of repudiation of government debt (which then would discourage individuals from lending to the government in the future), but the larger point still stands. All taxpayers are on the hook for repaying government debt, but the terms are decided by others. It is the ultimate "loan guarantee" in which people who don't participate in the process still are forced to pay for it.

Krugman calls it a "social contract." I think it should be called something else.

Gee, maybe we need those space aliens after all

Our economy is in depression, but there is nothing like preparing for those "space aliens" of which Krugman spoke last August 14 to put us back in the pink. An "adequate-sized fiscal stimulus" appears and we are there. Maybe we need yet another war, although the current ones have not kept our economy from going into the toilet -- but since they were not started by Democrats, perhaps they don't have the proper inflationary mix.

He writes:

All around, right now, there are people declaring that our best days are behind us, that the economy has suffered a general loss of dynamism, that it’s unrealistic to expect a quick return to anything like full employment. There were people saying the same thing in the 1930s! Then came the approach of World War II, which finally induced an adequate-sized fiscal stimulus — and suddenly there were enough jobs, and all those unneeded and useless workers turned out to be quite productive, thank you.

He goes on:

There is nothing — nothing — in what we see suggesting that this current depression is more than a problem of inadequate demand. This could be turned around in months with the right policies. Our problem isn’t, ultimately, economic; it’s political, brought on by an elite that would rather cling to its prejudices than turn the nation around.

First, as Robert Higgs has duly pointed out, World War II did NOT create prosperity, unless one calls "prosperity" being men getting shot to pieces, bombs destroying cities and millions of lives, and people having to make do with rationed food and fuel.

And if Krugman insists that he only is talking about "full employment," then one can argue that slavery also creates "full employment," although I doubt seriously that Krugman believes we should bring back the "peculiar institution." (However, Krugman DOES believe that people should be forced to work for several months out of the year in order to support government employee unions and to pay for the employment of people whose sole job it is to make their lives more difficult. That may not officially be "slavery," but it is something close to it.)

Second, when Krugman is talking about "adequate demand," he means the creation of new money or the injection of newly-borrowed money into the system, as though that creates wealth. I think it is instructive that Keynesians commit the error of separating consumption and production, as though they were two wholly-unrelated things.

If creation of new money or new borrowing alone can make us prosperous, then there is no reason -- using Krugman's own logic -- that Zimbabwe was not the most prosperous nation on the earth. Should North Korea's newest "Dear Leader" or whatever he will be called wish to turn his wretched country into a citadel of wealth, all he needs is to issue bonds and have his own government purchase them with newly-printed money.

However, I will give Krugman this important point: in the end, the problem IS inadequate "demand," but in the world of economics, demand ultimately comes from what we produce. Going back to Zimbabwe or North Korea, their currencies only can be used to purchase the meager produce that comes from their terrible economies.

Therein lies the problem of the Keynesian "stimulus." Right now, where does the government spending go? Well, it goes to prop up banks, "green energy," pay regulators to ensure that we produce even less, fund left-wing political groups, and, of course, the president's multi-million-dollar vacations. The president and his Keynesian minions, however, are doing everything they can to throttle things like the oil industry, the coal industry, production of electricity, and entrepreneurship in general.

These are things that are profitable, yet do not meet the political "standards" of those in power, so the government uses resources in order to quash production of things that would be profitable, and are necessary to help lead a recovery. Instead, Obama and Krugman believe that government can subsidize an economy into recovery, as though economic losses are nothing more than mere bookkeeping entries.

In the end, it is demand, but it is HOW we are able to demand that makes a difference. For the time being, the rest of the world will accept dollars, but as the Fed and the government create more and more of them, driving down their value, this does not provide the mechanism by which entrepreneurs can create sustainable avenues of production. Instead, everything is channeled into short-term avenues via which people are trying to find hedges against inflation.

Why is the economy in depression? It is depression because the Keynesian U.S. Government insists upon strangling profitable lines of production which don't meet the political approval of those people with power and influence and channeling resources into those areas that clearly are unprofitable. This is a "transfer economy" and, contra Krugman, wealth transfers do not create wealth.

Do leveraged buyouts destroy the economy? Krugman thinks so

It is interesting to watch the millionaire Paul Krugman turn into a populist, as the more he goes off on "taxing the rich," the more he demonstrates his own economic ignorance. In a recent column, he attacks Mitt Romney for being a "job destroyer" because Romney's firm, Bain Capital, engaged in leveraged buyouts, likening him to the villain of Oliver Stone's move, "Wall Street."

Not having seen "Wall Street" or its sequel, I'm not particularly interested in Oliver Stone's view of the world, especially since Stone worships dictators such as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, both of whom have reduced their respective countries, Cuba and Venezuela, into economic basket cases. Nonetheless, the theme that Krugman wants to portray is that leveraged buyouts usually are bad and that they "destroy jobs."

The problem is that Krugman (once again) does not understand the simple Law of Opportunity Cost, which is pretty common among Keynesians. He writes:

So Mr. Romney made his fortune in a business that is, on balance, about job destruction rather than job creation. And because job destruction hurts workers even as it increases profits and the incomes of top executives, leveraged buyout firms have contributed to the combination of stagnant wages and soaring incomes at the top that has characterized America since 1980.

It is hard to know where to begin, but I will start by saying that the official rate of unemployment by itself is no measure of prosperity or even the health of the economy. I recall watching two economists debate each other on television about 30 years ago, with one of the economists having come back from a trip to Romania and talking about the poverty that he witnessed there.

"But there's NO unemployment there," the other economist shot back. (The second economist is a Marxist and teaches at a university where I used to live.) To the Marxist, "unemployment" was the trump card: "Aha! You claim Romania is a bad place to live, BUT EVERYONE THERE HAS A JOB! SO THERE!!"

Indeed, after the communist regime fell there, the curtain was lifted and people found out just how poor Romania was and how even the government's official "we have no unemployment" line was fraudulent. Nonetheless, people on the left still hold that unemployment really is the only variable that matters, economically speaking.

When it comes to issues of leveraged buyouts, Krugman's logic goes south, especially on the employment situation. First, we have to remember that a viable firm is one in which the value of the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This is important, because Krugman wants us to believe that firms like Bain buy healthy and viable companies, destroy them from within, and then pocket the money and throw people out of work. Furthermore, it is the creation of unemployment, according to Krugman, that creates the "wealth" for people like Romney.

Now, we have to understand that the ONLY way for Bain or any other firm in this situation to make money is for the standard "buy low, sell high" and the only way that such a thing can happen with a leveraged buyout is for the sum of the parts of the firm be greater than the value of the firm as a whole. In other words, the firm has to be in trouble, whether it be mismanagement or something else that has made the company decline in value.

For example, Bain could NOT have purchased Apple for a leveraged buyout, since the value of Apple as a firm would be greater than all of the individual assets that Apple possesses. Yet, if one reads Krugman's column, he wants to paint a picture of Bain purchasing a company that is doing great, and it just destroys it so that some rich guy can walk off with money in his pocket.

Logically speaking, that is not possible. One cannot purchase a viable, healthy firm, sell off its assets, lay off its workforce, and make money. For that matter, the kind of cost-slashing measures that might occur if a corporate raider actually tries to save the firm are not arbitrary; they are done because the value of the sum of the parts is greater than the value of the whole.

Employees who go through such buyouts generally don't have happy stories to tell about it, but one should remember that if a firm is in a situation in which it finds the value of the sum of its parts to be greater than the value of the whole, the hard truth is that those employees most likely are going to lose their jobs, anyway. Why? A firm in that condition is not likely to last long, as it has an illness that either can be fixed only with new management or entrepreneurial ideas, or is going out of business (where its assets will be sold at a bankruptcy auction).

An analogy is the junkyard for cars. Many of the cars that are brought to junkyards still can be operated, and many of them could be fixed to the point where they might work. Junkyards, however, don't make money from fixing the cars on the lot. Instead, they make money by selling the parts taken off the junked cars to mechanics and dealers or selling the components as scrap to be recycled.

That is the hard reality of the world of leveraged buyouts. A firm is not a candidate for such a fate unless buyers perceive either that the company is going out of business or is so mismanaged or has unnecessarily-high costs of production. As everyone knows, leveraged buyouts are risky in that the raiders sometimes don't get what they anticipated, and when people lose their jobs, there are hard feelings.

However, Krugman would have us believe that leveraged buyouts are the CAUSE of unemployment, as opposed to the fact that job losses in such situations come about because the firm no longer was as viable as it once was. True, I realize that Keynesians probably are incapable of thinking of something in terms of opportunity cost, and they certainly can find no value in someone breaking up a firm and selling off the assets when the conditions allow them to do so.

In Wonderland, economies grow because of the nebulous thing called "aggregate demand," which is created by governments creating money. There is no such thing as opportunity cost in that world, and the entrepreneurial processes of creating more goods while using fewer resources does not spell growth to them, but rather unemployment.

Krugman wants us to believe that people get rich in a market economy by causing large-scale unemployment. In a market economy, people become wealthy by providing something that others want and are willing to give up something scarce that has value to others in order to obtain that new good or service. In the process of doing so, entrepreneurs create employment opportunities that enable more and more people to be able to obtain things that they previously could not.

Unfortunately, Krugman has chosen another path of explanation and the end result of governments following his advice is more poverty, inflation, and, in the end, more unemployment.

Peter Klein on the absurdity of Keynesian Economics

Peter Klein of the University of Missouri (who wrote his dissertation under Oliver Williamson, who, unlike Paul Krugman, is an actual economist who won the Nobel Prize) takes on Keynesian dogma. Enjoy.

Opportunity Cost for thee, but not for me

In a number of posts, I have alluded to the fact that Krugman denies that the Law of Opportunity Cost and the Law of Scarcity apply when the economy supposedly is in a "liquidity trap." Today, he seems to give some credence to real-live economic laws (as opposed to the stuff made up by J.M. Keynes), although he does not apply those laws evenly, which I guess is OK in the rarified air of the Princeton economics department.

His post continues the "weaponized Keynesianism" theme covered in a blog post earlier, and at one level, I agree with him. When a Republican makes the claim that cutting military spending will hurt the economy because it eliminates military-connected jobs, but yet claims that a "stimulus" either will have no effect or will be harmful, then he or she needs to be called out on that contradiction, and Krugman has every right to do it.

One of the reasons I cannot support most of the Tea Party candidates is that they support both the police state at home and military empire abroad, and both are destructive. (I'd say that they were destructive to a "free society," but our society long ago stopped being free, thanks to a tag-team effort by the Right and the Progressives.) Military spending that supports invasions abroad is destructive because it does not protect the people of this country, instead making them more vulnerable to revenge attacks from disaffected peoples abroad.

For that matter, I would much rather see a United States as a country where entrepreneurs are free to pursue ideas rather than the country it has become: a nation of people getting rich by being politically-connected with a gargantuan government that is increasingly protecting itself by means of utter brutality against innocent people who are deemed as "threats" to the existing order. If one wishes to invoke the term "sustainability," this is the perfect situation.

Unfortunately, Krugman takes another road and at the same time exposes his partisan viewpoints that masquerade as "economic" analysis. He writes:

...there are also darker motives behind weaponized Keynesianism.

For one thing, to admit that public spending on useful projects can create jobs is to admit that such spending can in fact do good, that sometimes government is the solution, not the problem. Fear that voters might reach the same conclusion is, I’d argue, the main reason the right has always seen Keynesian economics as a leftist doctrine, when it’s actually nothing of the sort. However, spending on useless or, even better, destructive projects doesn’t present conservatives with the same problem.

I'm not sure that Krugman really needs to play the role of the Official Psychoanalyst of the Right, but from what I can see, the Right is being consistent in that people from that political perspective believe that government should "protect" us from assaults from abroad, and in their view, military spending performs that duty. Many of us on the libertarian front argue, however, that the current direction of military spending does NOT fall into that "protect us" category, even if the original premise -- that government should protect us -- is correct.

Unfortunately, he then veers into a non sequitur that cries out for a response:

Beyond that, there’s a point made long ago by the Polish economist Michael Kalecki: to admit that the government can create jobs is to reduce the perceived importance of business confidence.

Appeals to confidence have always been a key debating point for opponents of taxes and regulation; Wall Street’s whining about President Obama is part of a long tradition in which wealthy businessmen and their flacks argue that any hint of populism on the part of politicians will upset people like them, and that this is bad for the economy. Once you concede that the government can act directly to create jobs, however, that whining loses much of its persuasive power — so Keynesian economics must be rejected, except in those cases where it’s being used to defend lucrative contracts.

What Krugman is saying here is that it does not matter if government blocks efforts of entrepreneurs and private business firms because, after all, government can easily replace the private economy through massive spending, financed by borrowing and monetary "creation." Thus -- and his logical construct really stretches credulity here -- if someone makes the claim that cutting military spending is bad because it eliminates certain jobs, that is "proof" that massive government regulations and control do not have any kind of negative effect.

Furthermore, throughout the article, he seems to be saying that government spending on military items prevents government spending elsewhere, an Opportunity Cost situation. Yet, Krugman has been arguing that government spending can be limitless (or close to it) in a "liquidity trap," so it would seem to me that if Krugman wanted to be consistent, he would say that we can have it all, both Military Keynesianism and Civilian Keynesianism.

So, we see The Great One invoking Opportunity Cost on one side of the ledger, but not on the other. This is pretty typical of his "analysis," which is unfortunate, given that some people think that Krugman is writing about economics, which is not the case. He is a political operative, period.

Considering the source

It is an exciting day for Paul Krugman! His views have been endorsed by David Frum, who according to the Great One, has "wandered off the conservative reservation." That Krugman would go ga-ga over an endorsement from Frum is quite interesting, to say the least.

Frum is a hardcore, war mongering "neo-conservative," better known for his drum beating for the various U.S. wars in the Middle East. Furthermore, Frum always has been of the school of thought that wars are "good for the economy," and his main criticism of the U.S. Government has been that it is not invading enough countries, killing enough people, and taking away enough of our liberties at home.

On the economic front, Frum always has lived on the Keynesian reservation, and his viewpoints have been well-known for a long time. That a Keynesian would endorse the views of a Keynesian hardly is surprising.

So, by all means, if someone like Frum wants to endorse Paul Krugman, perhaps it speaks more to the kind of world Krugman wants us to inherit than the rightness or wrongness of his views.

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.

Space aliens and coal mines: yeah, it all makes sense, now!

When I taught a macro course 20 years ago at UT-Chattanooga, we used Wallace Peterson's book which quoted Keynes as though it were Holy Scripture. Not surprisingly, Paul Krugman now seeks to justify his "space aliens" nonsense with...a quote from (Who else?) Keynes.

I will let readers view his post, but keep in mind that Krugman also thinks that he has effectively demolished the idea of gold being legitimate money. (According to Krugman, gold is a "useless metal," which I suspect is his way of saying that people use scarce resources to dig up something "useless," which, I guess, means that they are idiots.)

Furthermore, the use of gold bars in the "basements of central banks" is a relatively recent phenomenon and has little to do with the historical role of gold being used as a medium of exchange as opposed to a basis for issuing paper. But, given what I have read of Krugman, he would take it that we should leave gold in the ground (except for jewelry) because paper is being managed by Really Smart and Serious People like Ben Bernanke.

The Keynesian game: Let's pretend we are rich even though it is just an inflation mirage

At the heart of the recent Paul Krugman screeds has been this belief: In a recession, we must spend money as though we were wealthy. How do we do that? As Krugman has said many times, the government debases the currency or borrows with a vengeance.

Krugman's other "solution" is to confiscate more wealth from businesses and individuals and then pretend that the transfer itself makes everyone wealthier. The interesting thing to me is that this process -- debasing money -- actually makes people poorer as their money buys less than before.

However, when we are in Keynesianland, none of this matters. Inflation increases and it puts more money into the hands of people who then spend it, and somehow this magically lifts an economy from depression. As Krugman recently wrote:

Actually, there’s a very good case for allowing inflation to rise above 3 percent, to 4 or even 6 percent, for several years. Don’t take it from me — take it from Greg Mankiw and Ken Rogoff. Indeed, it’s arguable that inflation, both actual and expected, is the main thing the Fed should deliver, if it can.

Of course, the idea that the Fed has the ability to "manage" inflation is something for the debate mill. My belief is that it does not take long for inflation to jump from six percent to double-digits and beyond.

Underlying this nonsense is the belief that money itself is wealth, and that the government creates it out of thin air. Thus, the government pulls yet another financial rabbit out of the hat. Through central bank manipulation, the government can borrow at a zero (or even negative, in real terms) interest rate, which then becomes "proof" of "free money." In other words, the government can spend money as though the economy were robust instead of being just bust.

In the end, the results are yet another Keynesian mirage. Spend as though you were rich, as though the spending itself will turn around the economy and really make us rich. Maybe in the fantasyland of the Progressives, but not in the real world.

And, as the economy continues to tank, Krugman can blame the Wall Street Journal editorial writers, the Tea Party, and everyone else, but never his own ideas that put this spending spree into motion. No, if the economy tanks, it must be because those in power didn't spend enough and debase the currency enough because, after all, Paul Krugman never is wrong.

Wrong and wrong

Paul Krugman seems to have a need to claiming time and again that he is right and everyone else is wrong, and his "proof" is that interest rates did not go up as predicted by the editorial writers at the Wall Street Journal (thus, giving us the overworked "bond vigilantes" phrase). He also constantly invokes his "confidence fairy" line, but has not given proof of its lack of veracity -- except to use the term with the idea that his constantly saying it "proves" it is true.

His newest pen pal, Bruce Bartlett, seems to have gone over to the Keynesian side, and now he has David Frum to join him. I have linked Frum's mea culpa article for those who wish to read it.

However, there are a number of people who also have been wrong, people that Krugman never will acknowledge because he already has attacked them as being wrong and stupid all of the time: the Austrians. For example, in 2001 -- that's right, 2001 -- Ron Paul on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives declared that the Fed was in the process of engineering a housing bubble. However, since Rep. Paul subscribes to a theory that Krugman claims is no more credible than the "phlogiston theory of fire," then nothing Ron Paul says should have any veracity at all. (In Krugman's world, only Keynesians are right and everyone else -- even those that are right -- are wrong.)

Keep in mind that Krugman already has declared that the U.S. Government is not "broke," even though borrowing now is now out-of-control. Of course, Krugman's latest "scheme" is for the government to borrow obscene amounts of money, spend it, with the idea that the resulting spending will give the economy "traction" to move on its own. There is no causality other than Krugman's circular belief that spending will begat spending which will begat prosperity. In other words, he actually wants us to believe we can spend ourselves into prosperity.

Let us address his "confidence fairy" phrase for a minute. According to Krugman, business "confidence" is based solely on what business owners and managers perceive to be future spending. If someone will spend, business will build. Robert Higgs, however, notes that not only is Krugman wrong, economically speaking, but he also is contradicting his own guru, John Maynard Keynes:

The humor columnist for the New York Times, Paul Krugman, has recently taken to defending his vulgar Keynesianism against its critics by accusing them of making arguments that rely on the existence of a “confidence fairy.” By this mockery, Krugman seeks to dismiss the critics as unscientific blockheads, in contrast to his own supreme status as a Nobel Prize-winning economic scientist.

The irony in this dismissal, as others, including my friend Donald Boudreaux, have already pointed out, is that Krugman’s own vulgar Keynesianism relies on a much more ethereal explanatory force for its own account of macroeconomic fluctuations–namely, the so-called animal spirits. The master himself wrote in The General Theory: “Thus if the animal spirits are dimmed and the spontaneous optimism falters, leaving us to depend on nothing but a mathematical expectation, enterprise will fade and die. . . . [I]ndividual initiative will only be adequate when reasonable calculation is supplemented and supported by animal spirits. . . .” (p. 162). Because Keynes conceived of his “animal spirits” as “a spontaneous urge to action rather than inaction” (p. 161), he of course had no way to explain their coming and going or to measure or evaluate them in any way. They are as surreal as a ghost–when and why they come and go, no man knows or can know. Such is the force that drives the ups and downs of private investment in Keynesian economic theory, and such theory unfailingly drives Krugman’s commentaries on the recession and on the possibility and effective means of recovery from it.

Since Krugman's "confidence fairy" line is aimed at Higgs' "regime uncertainty" view, I include what Higgs says about it:

Regime uncertainty, however, has a much more grounded basis. In my own research on the topic, I have presented evidence derived from (1) a mass of testimony by investors, businessmen, and other contemporaries, (2) voluminous historical facts on the character of government actions that reasonable people had every reason to interpret as theatening the security of their private property rights, (3) variations in the structure of investment, especially as between short-term and longer-term projects, and (4) specific twists in the term-structure of returns on private corporate bonds, as well as other relevant evidence on the behavior of financial markets.

As against this varied and substantial evidence, what does the proponent of animal sprits have to offer? Well, nothing at all. The idea is purely fanciful, the product of Lord Keynes’s fertile imagination.

So, this is what we have:

• Keynesians are right and Austrians are wrong (because Krugman says so)
• The Keynesians "doctrine" of "animal spirits" also is wrong because it contradicts Krugman's view of business confidence
• But Keynesian doctrine is right, even if it is not right.

So, there you have it. Krugman now is depending upon David Frum, a guy who long ago rejected anything to do with free markets and peaceful relations between people as being desirable, to validate his own Keynesian opinions. You just cannot make up this stuff.

Debt and Delusion

I have stayed away from doing commentary on the whole debt ceiling "crisis" because nothing bugs me more than watching a bunch of hypocrites and frauds prattle around as though they were doing something important. Furthermore, we are dealing with a situation in which the contrived "crisis" is given more play than the real crisis that government has brought to us.

Nonetheless, we were supposed to have been transfixed with the dog-and-pony show in Washington, and now that the Political Classes have papered over yet another yawning hole, the pundits now are looking at winners and losers. In today's commentary, I deal with the angst emanating from the "Newspaper of Record," the editorial writers and, of course, Paul Krugman.

Like me, both entities consider the final decision to be a Really Bad Deal, but for reasons that demonstrate their own delusions about the economy. For all of the bad prose that these commentaries provide, I think that I can describe them in one sentence: We believe that government must spend and tax us into prosperity.

This is not possible, period. One can be of a socialist or Keynesian ideology and spout to the heavens that this time, such a scheme will work. It won't. Yet, Krugman gives us the same old delusion:

The worst thing you can do in these circumstances is slash government spending, since that will depress the economy even further. Pay no attention to those who invoke the confidence fairy, claiming that tough action on the budget will reassure businesses and consumers, leading them to spend more. It doesn’t work that way, a fact confirmed by many studies of the historical record.

Indeed, slashing spending while the economy is depressed won’t even help the budget situation much, and might well make it worse. On one side, interest rates on federal borrowing are currently very low, so spending cuts now will do little to reduce future interest costs. On the other side, making the economy weaker now will also hurt its long-run prospects, which will in turn reduce future revenue. So those demanding spending cuts now are like medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made them even sicker.

Krugman would be correct if assets were homogeneous, but they are not. Furthermore, he provides NO causal path as to how this continued government spending is going to lead to future prosperity. No, in Krugman's world, is just happens.

We are seeing a dearth of current private capital investment in this country, and no wonder. Krugman can ridicule business confidence all he wants by calling it the "confidence fairy," but when we have a government that has shown it is utterly hostile to investment that either is not directly subsidized or falls outside the president's view of what is right and proper (i.e. energy investments), then it is not hard to understand why businesses lack confidence to throw their money within U.S. shores.

Instead, Krugman wants us to believe that businesses automatically will invest when they see that the government is committed to showering the economy with new dollars. Well, government has been doing that for the past four year, and so far we are not seeing any results, and we won't see results, either.

What we are seeing is utter delusion in Washington, something I recently likened to the view from "Hitler's bunker" at the end of World War II. (I made the remarks while being interviewed on RT.)

So, Krugman and his employer can give us the Keynesian fairy tales all they want, but they are just as delusional as their friends in Washington. Krugman believes this madness is sustainable; it is not.

Krugman: In denial about spending and borrowing

In reading through Paul Krugman's material through the years, I find that time and again he is in denial both about history and the present state of the U.S. Government. You see, in Krugman's world, whatever Progressivist historians (or, more accurately, distorians) claim about history MUST be true. Why? Because they said so.

Herbert Hoover, despite all evidence to the contrary, was a True Believer in laissez-faire. The New Deal was bringing economic recovery to the nation until the Fed raised interest rates in 1937. World War II brought the USA out of the Great Depression. The regulated banking cartel worked wonderfully but was phased out because of the ideology of free markets, the Republican Party, and Ronald Reagan. (This is despite the fact that much of the banking deregulation of which Krugman speaks took place when Democrats had an overwhelming majority in Congress and Jimmy Carter was in the White House.)

The beat, of course, goes on. We had prosperity during the late 1990s because Bill Clinton got Congress to raise the top income tax rate from 33 percent to 39.6 percent, and that the Fed-sponsored stock market bubble never existed or was irrelevant to the boom. Or, that cutting the top tax rate from 39.6 percent to 35 percent is largely responsible for the current deficits. We now get Krugman's latest rewriting of history: there has not been an increase in government spending since Obama took office. And so on.

As for the current state of affairs, Krugman actually seems to believe that the responsible thing is for the U.S. Government to continue to borrow and spend as though there is no tomorrow (for inflation can repudiate the debt, and, as all followers of Krugman know, inflation is your friend). Now, despite Krugman's utter partisanship, I am not taking the Republican side of things, especially given that it was the Republicans from 2003 to 2007 who jacked up spending, escalated U.S. involvement in military conflicts around the world, and encouraged the financial bubble that brought down the house.

However, when Krugman is claiming that Obama somehow is a "moderate conservative Republican," then I wonder what planet he inhabits. This president has run the largest deficits in history, has unleashed the EPA to throw a slew of new regulations in the middle of a depression, who is demanding that colleges and universities conduct what essentially are kangaroo courts in order to increase sexual assault claims so feminists will be satisfied, and Krugman fails to acknowledge any of this?

The Keynesian party is over, even if Krugman cannot recognize that we cannot spend our way out of an economic crisis. Contrary to what he claims in The Return of Depression Economics, printing money does not create a "free lunch." However, if the government continues to follow the Keynesian directives of borrowing and spending, the "free lunch" soon enough will create enough destruction to ensure that there will be no lunch at all.

Greece: Creating prosperity through spending, Right?

A constant theme of Paul Krugman's columns and blog posts is the idea that prosperity is created through spending, lots and lots of spending. When the economy started tanking seriously four years ago, Krugman and politicians of both parties immediately started to push more spending as a way to end the downturn.

Obama himself after taking office declared that the USA would spend its way out of this recession/depression and the only condemnation that Krugman could muster of this strategy was that the administration wasn't borrowing and spending enough money. Since the government could create its own "money" at a whim, the only limit on spending our way back to boom conditions was a political will to increase the government's debt obligations to future taxpayers.

Then came the Greek crisis. Consistent with his Keynesian viewpoint, Krugman said that the "solution" for Greece either would be huge European Union bailouts or a return of Greece to its own currency, abandoning the Euro. Anyone who might argue that governments were cannibalizing future resources and production in order to maintain current spending was condemned as a promoter of "austerity," which in Wonderland is a Truly Evil Person.

Ever since joining the EU, the Greeks have acted as though Paul Krugman were their Guiding Light. As this article demonstrates, Greece's government, courtesy of EU taxpayers, has created boondoggle after boondoggle complete with a bloated public payroll:

Even on a stiflingly hot summer's day, the Athens underground is a pleasure. It is air-conditioned, with plasma screens to entertain passengers relaxing in cool, cavernous departure halls - and the trains even run on time.

There is another bonus for users of this state-of-the-art rapid transport system: it is, in effect, free for the five million people of the Greek capital.

With no barriers to prevent free entry or exit to this impressive tube network, the good citizens of Athens are instead asked to 'validate' their tickets at honesty machines before boarding. Few bother.

This is not surprising: fiddling on a Herculean scale — from the owner of the smallest shop to the most powerful figures in business and politics — has become as much a part of Greek life as ouzo and olives.

Indeed, as well as not paying for their metro tickets, the people of Greece barely paid a penny of the underground’s £1.5 billion cost — a ‘sweetener’ from Brussels (and, therefore, the UK taxpayer) to help the country put on an impressive 2004 Olympics free of the city’s notorious traffic jams.

The transport perks are not confined to the customers. Incredibly, the average salary on Greece’s railways is £60,000, which includes cleaners and track workers - treble the earnings of the average private sector employee here.

The overground rail network is as big a racket as the EU-funded underground. While its annual income is only £80 million from ticket sales, the wage bill is more than £500m a year — prompting one Greek politician to famously remark that it would be cheaper to put all the commuters into private taxis.

Not that any of this would matter in Keynesian thinking. Indeed, the Greek Underground would be considered the Ultimate Exercise in Creating Prosperity because it spends lots of money, and anyone who might protest that this is a huge waste of resources is an Enemy of the People.

The picture painted of Greece in the above article is a picture you won't read on Krugman's page or in the NY Times, as the omission of Greek wastefulness really highlights where Keynesians and Austrians part company (not that they ever walked together, anyway).

In the Keynesian/Krugman view, spending is separate from production and, to be honest, spending is the key to producing wealth. If you spend, they will produce.

I note this because I can anticipate the objection: Demand drives production, and even Austrians, with their emphasis upon the valuation of the factors of production being imputed by consumers placing value on the "final product," would admit to that. However, when Keynesians and Austrians speak of "demand," they are speaking in two different languages.

Keynesians couch demand in simple spending; put money into the hands of people, let them spend, and the economy magically will appear. (Chartalists go even further, claiming that because governments can claim a legal monopoly over money creation, that the amount of "demand" governments can create is infinite, since government is not "revenue constrained.")

Austrians, on the other hand, note that one cannot consume when one is not producing, and that Say's Law -- yes, that "tyrannical" Say's Law that Keynesians hate so much -- has something to tell us. The only way out of this world-wide depression is for governments to stop this massive borrowing and spending and permit the malinvestments -- and they are legion -- to liquidate and for the lines of production that are sustainable to be permitted to develop.

The current tragedy in Greece is the product of reckless spending and malinvestment. Unfortunately, neither the Greeks nor the economics faculty at Princeton are willing to face the facts.

Princeton University Economics: there is no such thing as opportunity cost

Because I am a holder of a doctorate from a program that was not "elite" by any standards, perhaps I don't understand the power that "elite" economists have in their possession to do away with economic laws. While Paul Krugman is on vacation, his Princeton colleague, Alan Blinder, gives us the latest howlers.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Blinder wonders how anyone might think that lots and lots of federal spending would be "job killing." Impossible! Blinder huffs:

It is easy, but irrelevant, to understand how someone might object to any particular item in the federal budget—whether it is the war in Afghanistan, ethanol subsidies, Social Security benefits, or building bridges to nowhere. But even building bridges to nowhere would create jobs, not destroy them, as the congressman from nowhere knows. To be sure, that is not a valid argument for building them. Dumb public spending deserves to be rejected—but not because it kills jobs.

The generic conservative view that government is "too big" in some abstract sense leads to a strong predisposition against spending. OK. But the question remains: How can the government destroy jobs by either hiring people directly or buying things from private companies? For example, how is it that public purchases of computers destroy jobs but private purchases of computers create them?

One possible answer is that the taxes necessary to pay for the government spending destroy more jobs than the spending creates. That's a logical possibility, although it would require extremely inept choices of how to spend the money and how to raise the revenue. But tax-financed spending is not what's at issue today. The current debate is about deficit spending: raising spending without raising taxes.

For example, the large fiscal stimulus enacted in 2009 was not "paid for." Yet it has been claimed that it created essentially no jobs. Really? With spending under the Recovery Act exceeding $600 billion (and tax cuts exceeding $200 billion), that would be quite a trick. How in the world could all that spending, accompanied by tax cuts, fail to raise employment? In fact, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the stimulus's effect on employment in 2010 was at least 1.3 million net new jobs, and perhaps as many as 3.3 million.

This is a most interesting economic worldview. While Blinder might be "technically" correct in that if government borrows a trillion dollars and spends it on whatever, then in the very short term, no doubt there would be new employment. Would it create new wealth? That is another matter, and would it be sustainable? probably not.

Yet, Blinder really doubles back on himself in that first paragraph. Let me repeat what he said:

But even building bridges to nowhere would create jobs, not destroy them, as the congressman from nowhere knows. To be sure, that is not a valid argument for building them. Dumb public spending deserves to be rejected—but not because it kills jobs.

What would constitute "dumb public spending," given that he believes that government spending "creates jobs," even "dumb" spending. What is the criteria for determining that the spending is "dumb," and why would it matter, anyway?

No doubt, Blinder would employ an opportunity cost argument but then he contradicts that argument not only within his sentence, but also further down in the article. He states:

A second job-destroying mechanism operates through higher interest rates. When the government borrows to finance spending, that pushes interest rates up, which dissuades some businesses from investing. Thus falling private investment destroys jobs just as rising government spending is creating them.

There are times when this "crowding-out" argument is relevant. But not today. The Federal Reserve has been holding interest rates at ultra-low levels for several years, and will continue to do so. If interest rates don't rise, you don't get crowding out. (emphasis mine)

So, all that is needed to eliminate "crowding out" (which also is opportunity cost in action) is for the Fed to hold down interest rates by mere fiat? (Oh, I forgot. Ben Bernanke was the chair of the economics department at Princeton before going to the Fed, and he still is listed as being on the faculty there. If one is a Princeton economist, a mere declaration can eliminate that pesky thing called opportunity cost.)

Is all of this spending "job killing"? If one goes by Blinder's ultra-short term view of spending and "job creation," then it is not "killing" jobs. However, if one sees this spending along with other government efforts to prop up the economy as impeding the liquidation of malinvestments and impeding a real recovery, then by all means the government spending spree is killing jobs by the millions.

Creating caricatures is "listening"? Only in Wonderland!

It seems that Paul Krugman really does listen to what others who are not Keynesians have to say. Really! Why do I know that? Krugman himself says it:

In my experience with these things – which I find both within economics and more broadly – is that if you ask a liberal or a saltwater economist, “What would somebody on the other side of this divide say here? What would their version of it be?” A liberal can do that. A liberal can talk coherently about what the conservative view is because people like me actually do listen. We don’t think it’s right, but we pay enough attention to see what the other person is trying to get at.

The reverse is not true. You try to get someone who is fiercely anti-Keynesian to even explain what a Keynesian economic argument is, they can’t do it. They can’t get it remotely right. Or if you ask a conservative, “What do liberals want?” You get this bizarre stuff – for example, that liberals want everybody to ride trains because it makes people more susceptible to collectivism. You just have to look at the realities of the way each side talks and what they know. One side of the picture is open-minded and sceptical. We have views that are different, but they’re arrived at through paying attention. The other side has dogmatic views.

In his own blog, Cafe Hayek, Don Boudreaux has his own reply to Krugman, and you can read it here. Now, for a guy who insists calling the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle the "Hangover Theory" (and then explaining it in caricature form and simply refusing to acknowledge that Austrians do not explain it in the terms Krugman uses), his statement is pretty rich. Furthermore, I looked at some past posts of my blog and found a number of places where Krugman has declared that opposition to his points is motivated, at least in large part, by racism and hatred of others. (Last year, Krugman insisted that anyone opposed to QE2 had that viewpoint because that person wanted others to suffer and be out of work.)

So, despite Krugman's insistence that HE and HIS FRIENDS all are the epitome of open-mindedness and that everyone else is a dolt and idiot, I let his own columns and his own comments speak for themselves.

I have met a number of economists who won the Nobel, including Krugman, James Buchanan, Gary Becker, Milton Friedman, and F.A. Hayek. Interestingly, the latter four were gracious to their intellectual opponents and took great efforts to be able to explain differing points of view. And I never saw those four use the kind of attack language that Krugman regularly uses in his columns, articles, blog posts, and interviews.

Robert Murphy's new "Krugman and Keynes" course

Robert Murphy, perhaps the best Krugman critic out there, will be teaching a new course, Keynes, Krugman, and the Crisis. Writes Murphy:

The class is designed to give students of the Austrian School a fair understanding of the worldview of John Maynard Keynes and his best-known living proponent, Paul Krugman, in the specific context of economic booms and busts. After reading source material from Keynes and Krugman, we will discuss Austrian critiques of their approach.

Commenting on Krugman, Murphy says:

Whatever else one may think of him, Krugman always offers a snappy argument for his views, backed up by an appeal to a formal model. My main goal in this section of the course is to equip students to "think like Krugman." For example, he has a ready response for critics who object, "So why don't we just run trillion-dollar deficits forever, if they're so good?" or who ask, "Why didn't your advice work in Zimbabwe?" Naturally, I don't agree with Krugman's worldview, but the point is that he has a fairly consistent, complex theoretical structure. Ultimately, it takes more than one-sentence zingers to give his views the thorough refutation that they deserve.

Anyone interested in the course can find more information about it here.

Is it austerity, or reality?

One of Paul Krugman's constant themes has been that "austerity" is the wrong prescription to deal with a shrinking economy. If the economy is going south, he claims, then governments must spend and spend prodigiously in order to prop up everything. (Krugman adds that this should be the case when the economy is in a "liquidity trap," which he believes changes the rules of economics.)

At one level, I understand his point. The "austerity" programs often mean increased taxes and other government activities that can drag down an economic recovery (although Krugman has been insistent that we need massive tax increases in the USA, so I don't know why he would be against that aspect of "austerity").

Yet, there is something else out there, something that really divides the Keynesian and Austrian camps: Keynesians really believe that spending money is what creates wealth, and that governments can create wealth out of thin air simply by cranking up the spending. Furthermore, assets really are not real; if the economy goes into the tank, government simply can declare prosperity and if people believe (yes, only believe) that the spending will make everyone prosperous, then all is well.

How else can someone really claim that heavily-subsidized industries like "wind power" and "corn-based ethanol" can create overall prosperity and lead us into recovery. How else can someone really claim that if government takes enough resources away from everyone else and gives them to GM, Chrysler, and the United Auto Workers, that we will have overall prosperity?

Austrians do not see "austerity" as a policy, but rather a reality. This is not a morality play (even if Krugman has accused us of enjoying the infliction of "pain"), but rather a bowing to reality of the fact that one cannot fix a broken economy by pretending it is not broken.

There is something else I have noticed; in Krugman's view, if a policy has immediate "good effects," then the policy must be good. Thus, ANY liquidation of malinvestments also must be bad, bad, bad, as that means short-term pain.

It was not just the Keynesians who have demanded that we play a "let's pretend" game about the economy. Shortly after the financial crisis of the fall of 2008 became painfully obvious, Martin Feldstein, who was President Ronald Reagan's chief economic adviser, called for the government to enact what was little more than a scheme to prop up housing prices. Like the Keynesians, Feldstein could not recognize that falling prices were a symptom, not a cause of the larger problem.

In the Keynesian world, there are no malinvestments, only idle resources. Spend enough, and those resources will rise up. After all, doesn't Y = C+I+G+(X-M) tell us everything we need to know about the economy?

Well, not it doesn't. In fact, I will go as far as to say that the equation tells us next-to-nothing about an economy and how it works. The economy is not in recession because there is a lack of spending; there is a fall in spending because the economy is in recession, and we cannot spend ourselves into prosperity no matter what Krugman and the Keynesians tell us.

Keynes versus Hayek, round two

Here is a fun video made by some of my friends at George Mason University. Notice Joe Salerno playing the Mises role!

You can find it on this link provided by Robert Wenzel.

The madness of fiat money

Yes, I know that Paul Krugman has yet another budget screed in which he calls for higher taxes, more government spending, and all that. Surprise, surprise, surprise: he falls down and worships the proposal that comes from the hard-core socialist wing of the Democratic Party (the "Progressive Caucus").

However, I am more interested in his recent blog post, "Money Madness," in which he once again explains his belief that a system of fiat money is just fine with him, and if it is fine with Krugman, then it is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He writes:

The whole tone of this discussion is reminiscent of the way people talked about the gold standard back when it was widely thought that any meddling with the sacred role of a metal with precisely 79 protons would mean the demise of civilization. But it has been 80 years since Britain went off gold, and last I noticed, William and Kate weren’t getting married in a desolate wasteland. We’ve had freely floating exchange rates for almost 40 years....

There you have it. Since we have been outright printing money for nearly a century, everything is just great, right? Furthermore, what Krugman really is saying is that we would not have had prosperity at all. We would be stuck in depression with high unemployment and a very uncertain future.

Oh, wait! After massive new spending, QE2 (which, contra Krugman, turned out to be a big deal), we have high unemployment and a very uncertain future. Krugman's reply? Print more money.

Are food and energy prices rising? Why, that is due to speculators and demand from elsewhere. It couldn't have anything to do with Ben Bernanke's showering of the world with dollars. Why? If it did, then Krugman would have to admit that maybe inflation was not a good thing.

But, Krugman does not stop there. No, he gives us his monetary philosophy of life:

Anyway, money and monetary policy are basically technical issues, albeit important ones. The fate of Western society is not at stake, nor is there a deep moral issue in allowing the purchasing power of the medium of exchange to depreciate modestly over time. Calm down, everyone.

I would beg to differ. If I were to enter your household and take your property, albeit slowly, you would still call it theft.

However, when the government says that you have to use its money for exchanges, and then purposely depreciates that money, leaving you poorer in the process, that is a moral issue. Krugman would counter, of course, that it is the very inflation that makes the economy grow, but he gives no methodology of this "technical" claim.

By the way, when Krugman claimed last year that those who opposed QE2 did so because they wanted people to suffer and be out of work, was he not making a "moral claim"? When he claims that opposition to Keynesian policies is done out of racism, is that not a "moral claim"?

So, I guess that when Krugman attacks people who disagree with him and calls them racists, he is making a "technical" statement. Anyone who points out that deliberate government depreciation of money just might have a moral connotation is engaging in metaphysics.

In the end, with Krugman it is "heads I win, tails your lose."