Previous month:
November 2008
Next month:
January 2009

December 2008

Origins of Neo-Hooverism

Matthew Yglesias asks a question:

Why Neo-Hooverism Now?: [T]he right initially tended toward a neo-Hooverite line on the economic crisis. Then came a seeming shift and the emergence of a broad consensus in favor of strong action. Recently, though, there’s been a tilt back in the neo-Hooverite direction even as the crisis has grown more severe and along with it, increased blogospheric interest in what motivates neo-Hooverism. Steve Benen offered...

  1. The Moral Explanation: Ed Kilgore explains that some on the right thing America is too fate and happy. This is a bit like David Frum’s nineties vintage Donner Party conservatism.
  2. The Benefactor Explanation: Matt Stoller says the right is more interested in entrenching inequality than worrying about the economy.
  3. The Illiterate Explanation: Maybe they’re just dumb.
  4. The Strategic Explanation: TPM Reader JF observes that a long depression serves the GOP’s political interests.

The obvious thing to say about this is that these explanations are mutually re-enforcing. In particular, the fact that a prolonged economic downturn serves the GOP’s political interests massively increases the grasp of the other factors. It’s one thing for a political party to buck the desires of its interest-group base or the ideological biases of its core supporters when doing so is necessary for the party’s political fortunes. But to buck those desires when doing so would be bad for the party’s electoral prospects is really asking a lot.

Beyond that, the emergence of age polarization in the electorate may play a role here. Elderly people, and especially the more prosperous group of elderly people, are actually reasonable well-positioned to weather a deflationary storm. By contrast, young people pay a huge lifelong economic price for graduating into a weak labor market or getting laid off after only a few years in the workforce.

I think that (4) is simply wrong. A long depression does not serve the GOP's political interests because this recession is so easy to blame on Bush: deregulation and then the failure to agree to a timely and sufficient fiscal policy program.

Moreover, the elderly are not well-positioned to weather a deflationary storm: their 401(k)s and other assets have fallen in value by at least a third in the past year.

No. (1), (2), and (3) are sufficient.


National Journal Crashed-and-Burned Watch (Stuart Taylor Edition)

Why oh why can't we have a better press corps? We all ask this question. There is something that some of you all can do today. And I beg you to please do so.

If you subscribe to the National Journal, pick up the phone and cancel your subscription, telling whoever you speak to that you will not resume until Stuart Taylor, Jr., is fired from the National Journal's staff.

Outsourced to Matthew Yglesias:

Matthew Yglesias: A pretty stunning Stuart Taylor column in the National Journal:

[C]ivil libertarians’ outrage... the prospect of anyone in the U.S. being inappropriately wiretapped, surveilled, or data-mined seems to stir the viscera of many Bush critics more than the prospect of thousands of people being murdered by terrorists.... Obama will have a choice: He can give the Left what it wants and weaken our defenses. Or he can follow the advice of his more prudent advisers, recognize that Congress, the courts, and officials including Attorney General Michael Mukasey have already moved to end the worst Bush administration abuses — and kick the hard Left gently in the teeth....

Kicking the term “Bush critics” around is a huge red herring in this context. Bush is going to be out of office on January 20th. If anyone conducts illegal (or “inappropriate” to use Taylor’s newspeak term) surveillance of anyone, it’s going to be Barack Obama.... For years now the sensible center has engaged in the weird conceit that dislike of illegal violations of Americans’ constitutional liberties is some kind of odd symptom of possessing unduly vocifierous dislike of George W. Bush. But the issue, of course, extends far beyond Bush. The issue is whether or not we’re going to have meaningful limits on the power of the federal executive to conduct surveillance. Taylor thinks we should be so petrified of the risk of terrorist attack that we say “no.” After all, being illegally wiretapped never killed anybody....

We already saw in the middle of the twentieth century where unlimited surveillance power leads — to massive politically motivated abuse. And of course it’s true that nothing J. Edgar Hoover or Richard Nixon ever did with their unlimited surveillance power ever “seriously harmed” anybody in the way that being killed by a terrorist harms you. But it still wasn’t a good idea to let them do that...

I have weighed in on this before, in an overwrought tizzy:

Stuart Taylor, Jr. Is a Psychotic Creep: Stuart Taylor, Jr., attacks the judges who ruled against the Bush administration in the al-Marri case. If there is time to assemble a SWAT team to make a raid, there is time to get a warrant. Judges have telephones, and they answer them. Most people who salivate at the thought of torture and construct "ticking bomb" hypotheticals to make it seem reasonable work a little bit harder than Taylor to keep their hypotheticals from being completely and transparently silly. Not Stuart Taylor, Jr.:

OPENING ARGUMENT: A Judicial Overreaction To Bush Abuses? (06/18/2007): [T]heir additional, broader holding... that Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri and other suspected Qaeda terrorists arrested in the United States cannot be detained at all, no matter how dangerous, unless the government brings criminal charges against them within a week of arrest or is unable to deport them.... Judge Motz (joined by Judge Roger Gregory).... Motz's suggestion that the criminal-justice system can safely deal with such people is unconvincing... [the] system is ill-equipped to handle any future waves of Qaeda attacks on American soil.... [H]ow will the Motz ruling look in hindsight if and when Americans are mass-murdered by the thousands again, or if -- as seems all too possible -- Islamist terrorists get their hands on a nuclear device or lethal germs?

Suppose, for example, that after a series of bombings in Chicago, Washington, and Los Angeles, an anonymous tipster tells the FBI that five Saudi biology students have assembled a large supply of lethal anthrax in two New York City apartments and are planning a massive attack.... With no time to get a warrant, FBI agents break into the apartment, arrest two Saudis, and find lots of anthrax and Qaeda literature. Under Judge Motz's logic, both men would have to be released or deported unless criminally charged within a week -- but they could not be criminally charged because the warrantless search would clearly have been illegal...

I have no idea why the National Journal and other outlets that wish to be thought reputable continue to burn their reputations by printing Stuart Taylor, best known for on February 4, 2002 denouncing our NATO allies:

Opening Argument (02/04/2002): [European allies] already in an overwrought tizzy about the supposed mistreatment of the 158 detainees at Guantanamo Bay...


Bruce Bartlett Asks: "What Would Keynes Do?"

Some time ago Ezra Klein asked why we economist types were so happy--well, why all we economist types except those of us with offices on the same hall who will miss her company and must teach her and her husband's courses in the spring--at Barack Obama's decision to choose Great Depression and monetary history expert Christie Romer to chair the President's Council of Economic Advisers:

Ezra Klein: [C]an this really be so useful? It's hard to believe that a complex financial crisis in 2008 is so similar to a complex economic crisis in 1929 that you need an incredibly subtle understanding of the latter to effectively apprehend the former. Presumably most economists know enough not to repeat the basic mistakes of the 1930s, and the question is which economists know enough to avoid the possible mistakes of the 2000s. Is there any real reason to assume otherwise?

The problem is that economic theory is not rocket science. It is not like theoretical physics--conducting a relatively few crucial experiments to decide on basic theories and then working out the consequences of those theories from first principles. Economic theory is, instead, crystalized history. We take a bunch of historical episodes that seem relevant to the problems of interest of today. We boil down what seem to be their salient features. And then from the resulting soup and bones we construct simple stylized models that we think help us understand present and future episodes that fall into the same class.

The problem is that right now we have a financial crisis big enough and strange enough that there is only one past historical episode in the same class: the early stages of the Great Depression. And when there is only one, the value of skill at deriving theoretical lessons from the class is at a steep discount and the value of knowing the history is at a premium: better to take the history raw.

Which is why we (OK, them) are cheering the appointment of Christie Romer, reading copies of John Maynard Keynes, Collected Works vol. XXI: Activities 1931-1939: World Crises and Policies 1931-1939, and casting ourselves back into the Great Depression and asking: "What would John Maynard Keynes do?"

And with that let me turn the mike over to Bruce Bartlett at Forbes:

What Would Keynes Do?: Every day that goes by makes clearer the parallels between the current financial crisis and the one that led to the Great Depression. Then, as now, the core problem was... falling prices... fixing it will require more than just low interest rates. This was the key insight of British economist John Maynard Keynes....

The decline in wealth also reduced spending, and the fall in prices had the effect of magnifying debts.... Both Hoover and Roosevelt tried to stanch the bleeding by buying up bad assets through the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, just as the Treasury is doing today through the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But it was just as unsuccessful as the current Treasury effort....

[M]arket rates cannot fall enough to compensate because no one is going to lend money at a negative nominal rate; they will just hold on to it. When this happens, we have what economists call a liquidity trap, and the Fed cannot inject liquidity into the economy to stop the deflation.... [T]he Fed is unable create liquidity by buying Treasuries with new money. It ends up being an exchange of similar assets with no economic effect. What's the difference between a dollar bill and a Treasury bill with a barely positive interest rate (as is the case today)?...

Unlike in the 1930s, the Fed is not allowing the money supply to diminish. Also, we have programs like federal deposit insurance to prevent bank deposits from shrinking. But velocity is collapsing.... The nation is fortunate to have Ben Bernanke as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. As an academic economist, he studied the Great Depression in great depth. He also has a keen grasp of the problem of deflation....

What Keynes figured out is that when conditions such as these exist, the federal government must step in to raise spending in the economy and thereby increase velocity. This means running a budget deficit, but that is only part of the solution.... Keynes argued that the only thing that will really work is if the federal government uses its resources to purchase goods and services. It must buy "stuff"--concrete, computers, paper, glass, steel--anything as long as it is tangible. In other words, the government must spend the way households do, by buying things. It must also employ labor, because much of what people spend money on today is in the form of services....

At this point, Federal Reserve policy will become effective again. As prices and interest rates rise, the liquidity trap disappears and money begins circulating more rapidly; i.e., velocity increases. This is what ends an economic crisis. Unfortunately, it was not until World War II that the federal government spent enough on real resources--because they were needed for the war effort--to make Keynes' theory work in practice.

The challenge for Congress and the Obama administration will be to devise a spending program that draws a significant amount of real resources out of the economy fast enough....

For what it's worth, Keynes didn't know what to do in this situation, either. He suggested building pyramids and burying bank notes in deep mine shafts that had been filled in. As people tried to dig up the money, they would be forced to employ labor and purchase equipment that would raise spending and thereby growth. In the end, it took the greatest war in history to make Keynes' theory work.

Hopefully we won't need another world war to get us out of the fix we're in today. Fortunately, we are in the early stages of a crisis, and downward momentum has not yet set in....

[T]here is a limit to what the Fed can do by itself. At some point, government spending must be the engine that pulls the economy out of recession.... But it must be the right kind of spending. It must draw real resources out of the economy--that is the only kind of spending that will work. Buying bad mortgages and sending out more rebate checks won't do any good.


Glurk!!

Rex Nutting of Marketwatch:

Payrolls plunge by stunning 533,000 in November: U.S. nonfarm payrolls plunged by an astonishing 533,000 in November, the worst job loss in 34 years, the Labor Department reported Friday. It's only the fourth time in the past 58 years that payrolls have fallen by more than 500,000 in a month. Since the recession began 11 months ago, a total of 1.9 million jobs have been lost. The unemployment rate rose from 6.5% in October to 6.7% in November, the highest jobless rate since October 1993...

Everytime I remark to Barry Eichengreen about the disjunction between the intensity of the financial crisis and its limited transmission to the real economy, he says "just wait." I guess we can stop waiting.


How Are We Going to Manage to Do All This

The Obama administration is going to be rebuilding and reconstructing five major sectors of the American t. It has no choice--there is no other option. It has to remake:

  • Autos
  • Housing finance
  • High finance
  • Energy
  • And the big one—health care

On what principles and through what procedures is this extraordinary exercise in structural economic reform policy going to be accomplished? I get how to do the macroeconomics of Obama administration economic policy. I don’t get how to do the structural side…


An Economist Would Have Auctioned the Clothes on Ebay. Just Saying

Via If I Ran the Zoo, Jane Espenson:

Jane Espenson: Remember how I was just in Vancouver? Well, instead of checking luggage, I had a box of clothes FedExed up there and then back down here when I left. It avoids the hassles of baggage claim and I totally recommend this plan. When you're ready to head home, you just scoop your unlaundered clothes into a box and ship it off, neat as you please.

Except that they do some sort of operation at the border in which the shipping labels are removed and sometimes switched. Fun!

This means that when a box arrived at my home yesterday, it didn't contain my clothes. It contained someone else's clothes. Luckily, this person was savvier than I about the hazards of international shipping labels, and had included a piece of paper with his name and (business) address. I have the property of a "Mr. R. Starkey." Those of you who know stuff about stuff are now freaking out. A little checking re: the address and the business name has verified: I have Ringo Starr's clothes. Okay, now everyone can freak out. Please notice that according to any system of logic, this makes me the fifth Beatle.

Steps are being taken to fix the problem. Don't worry, I'm not going to keep the clothes. I'm not even going to look at them, in fact, and I'm hoping Ringo is exercising similar restraint when it comes to my (if you recall, unlaundered) items.

So, how is this a writing lesson? Well, doesn't it make you feel a little better about the inciting incident in a lot of comedies?

UPDATE: I just took Ringo's clothes to Ringo's house. Turns out that wasn't a business address after all, but his actual home address. Holy cow. I met his charming British assistant who gave me a signed Ringo photo and was very happy to have the box of clothes, but who did not have my box of clothes. So they're not with Ringo after all. Who knows what other celebrity is pawing through my stuff -- I hope it's Shatner, don't you? Anyway, it's been a fine adventure and Ringo Starr has star-shaped stone inlays in his driveway. Not tacky like it sounds, actually very nice, very tasty.


When Reactionary Goldbug Austrian Plumber-Economists Attack!!

Matthew Yglesias asks why oh why can't we have a better press corps--why are the gentlebeings of the press so eager to be played by Republican spinmasters?

Matthew Yglesias: Strange Swing: Joe The Plumber has a list of recommended books and the only non-plumbing volume is written by Ludwig von Mises? How is it, exactly, that we were supposed to believe this guy was a swing voter?

Tyler Cowen speculates that perhaps the Ron Paul Conspiracy has gotten to Joe Wuerzelbacher:

Marginal Revolution: Joe the Plumber and his favorite books: Joe reads economics:

The Theory of Money and Credit (Ludwig von Mises): "It brought monetary theory into the mainstream of economic analysis. It is important reading for these troubled times."

My theory is that someone in Ron Paul's camp told him to say that...

And Tyler goes on to (weakly) defend von Mises:

Scrolling through it a bit, it is more readable than my recollection and it remains one of the better 20th century books on monetary theory...

It is hard to read Tyler here.

What does "more readable than my recollection" mean? Is that a statement about the book, or about his recollection? Similary, what does "one of the better 20th century books on monetary theory" mean? Is that a statement about von Mises's Money and Credit, or about 20th century monetary theory?

My view is that Money and Credit is very readable--compulsively readable, in fact: I have just spent two and a half hours telling myself "it's OK; I will just read one more page...". But it is only readable in a rhetorical-excess-train-wreck mode, for it is also totally bats--- insane.

I recommend starting at page 416: read through the defenses of the gold standard as the only monetary system consistent with representative government, the attacks on Keynes, the attacks on the New Deal, the attacks on the United Nations, the blaming of all unemployment on labor unions--or on governments--the attacks on private-sector fractional-reserve banking, and stop with the attacks on all other believers in the gold standard not named "von Mises", not dedicated to the root-and-branch elimination of all forms of private fractional-reserve banking, and infected by the errors of the nineteenth-century British Banking School:

Ludwig von Mises, Money and Credit: p. 416 ff: [T]he gold standard appears as an indispensible element of the body of constitutional guarantees that make the system of representative government function.... What the foes of the gold standard are asking for is... to intensify very considerably the already-prevailing upward trend of prices and wages.... Such a policy of radical inflationism is, of course, extremely popular.... How pale is the art of sorcerers, witches, and conjurors when compared with that of the government's treasury department! The government, professors tell us, 'can raise all the money it needs by printing it'[1]. Taxes for revenue, announced a chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, are 'obsolete'[2]. How wonderful!... Eventually... the cleverly-concocted plans of inflation collapse. Whatever compliant government economists may have said, inflationism is not a monetary policy that can be considered as an alternative to a sound-money policy....

[T]he gold standard did not collapse. Governments abolished it in order to pave the way for inflation. The whole grim apparatus of oppression and coercion--policemen, customs guards, penal courts, prisons, in some countries even executioners--had to put into action in order to destroy the gold standard. Solemn pledges were broken, retroactive laws were promulgated, provisions of constitutions and bills of rights were openly defied. And hosts of servile writers praised what the governments had done.... The most remarkable thing about this allegedly new monetary policy, however, is its complete failure.... [I]t substituted fiat money in the domestic markets.... It contributed considerably to the disintegration of the international division of labor.... but the position of gold as the world's [monetary] standard is impregnable....

The expansionist doctrine does not realize that interest... is an originary category of human valuation, actual in any kind of human action and independent of any social institutions. The expansionists do not grasp the fact that there never were and there never can be human beings who attach to an apple available in a year or in a hundred years the same value they attach to an apple available now.... These absurd doctrines greatly impressed ignorant politicians and demagogues.... The inevitable eventual failure of any attempt at credit expansion... impossible to substitute fiat money and a bank's circulation credit for non-existing capital goods. Credit expansion initially can produce a boom... bound to end in a slump, in a depression... the recurrence of periods of economic crises... [caused by] the reiterated attempts of governments and banks supervised by them to expand credit....

This spurious grocer philosophy was once and for all exploded by Adam Smith and Jean-Baptist Say. In our day it has been revived by Lord Keynes.... Keynes was at a loss to advance a tenable argument against Say's law. Nor have his disciples or the hosts of economists, pseudo and otherwise, in the offices of the various governments, the United Nations, and divers other national or international bureaux done any better....

Wage rates are a market phenomenon.... If the government or labour unions fix wage rates at a higher point than the potential rate of the unhampered labour market and if they enforce their minimum-price decree by compulsion and coercion, a part of those who want to find jobs remain unemployed. Such institutional unemployment is the inevitable result of the methods applied by present-day self-styled progressive governments. It is the real outcome of measures falsely labeled as pro-labour.... [T]he reputation and prestige of the men now ruling the countries... and of their professional and journalistic allies are so inseparably tied up with the 'progressive' doctrine that they must cling to it. If they do not want to forsake their political ambitions, they must stubbornly deny that their own policy tends to make mass unemployment a permanent phenomenon....

[...]

Sound money still means today what it meant in the nineteenth century: the gold standard.... The main thing is that the government should no longer be in a position to increase the quantity of money in circulation and the amount of [private bank-provided] cheque-book money not fully--i.e. 100 per cent--covered by deposits paid in by the public. No backdoor must be left open where inflation can slip in.... It merely helps the rulers whose policies brought about the catastrophe to exculpate themselves....

[M]ost supporters of sound money do not want to go beyond the elimination of inflation for fiscal purposes.... [T]hey do not want to prevent... [private-sector] credit expansion for the sake of lending to business.... Their idea of sound money is... with all the errors of the British Banking School.... They still cling to the schemes whose application brought about the collapse of the European banking systems... discredited the market economy by generating the almost regular recurrence of periods of economic depression. There is no need to add anything to the treatment of these problems as provided in Part Three of this volume and also in my book Human Action.... [T]he characteristic duplicity of the [central] bank policy.... [Private-sector] credit expansion... obscure[s] the fact that there prevails a nature-given scarcity of the material things on which the satisfaction of human wants depends...

Two further notes:

[1] This citation to Abba Lerner's Economics of Control omits the second half of Lerner's sentence, which reads: "if the raising of the money is the only consideration." Since the raising of the money is never the only consideration in designing a tax system, the meaning of Lerner's sentence is not the meaning that von Mises wants his readers to ascribe to it.

[2] Again, this citation to Beardsley Ruml's "Taxes for Revenue Are Obsolete" is a gross and illegitimate distortion.

Ruml writes that while state and local governments must ultimately raise all the money to finance their spending through taxation, the federal government has extra freedom of action because of "the elimination, for domestic purposes, of the convertibility of the currency into gold." How should the government use this freedom of action? The first of the policy considerations it should have in mind, Beardsley Ruml says, is: "Do we want a dollar with reasonably stable purchasing power over the years?... [T]he most important single purpose ot be served by the imposition of federal taxes is the maintenance of a dollar which has stable purchasing power.... [W]ithout the use of federal taxation all other means of [price] stabilization... monetary policy... price controls... subsidies, are unavailing..." That is the opposite of what von Mises wants his readers to think Ruml's meaning is.


A Question from Duncan Black...

He asks:

Eschaton: Creepy Cosmic Thought: Do Brookings and CFR exist to provide employment for the stupidest of our citizens?

I don't know how to answer. I am enough of a Millian liberal to believe that in the long run--except where huge piles of money are deployed on the other side by those with a direct material interest in misinforming or entertaining the public--expertise is rewarded, and experts gain authority, and organizations that want to be perceived as worth listening to focus on ensuring that the people they hold out as experts do in fact have expertise.

I think I understand why this Millian liberal process is short-circuited in the case of modern American journalism: too much money is at stake and too many media outlets are in the horse-race entertainment game rather than in the inform-the-public game.

But neither Brookings nor CFR are in the entertainment game. And both had, I thought, committed themselves to business models in which they were the antitheses of lobbyists rather than just another couple of flacks serving the short-run interest of their donors...


Death from the Skies!! Blogging

A colleague in another building emails me, inquiring why the Brookings Institution is holding Gregg Easterbrook out as an "expert" on "environmental policy; global warming; science; space policy; 'well-being' research; Christian theology..." and pointing me to Andrew Northrup:

The Poor Man: Dear God make it stop:

[Gregg Easterbrook's] Creepy Cosmic Thought: A running mystery of cosmology is gamma-ray bursts.... Astronomers assume gamma-ray bursts must be natural in origin.... [But] what if they are the muzzle flashes of horrific planet-killer weapons? Recently Louisiana State researchers... detected very strong gamma bursts coming not from deep space, but from about 3,000 light years distant.... [My] reaction: Great, maybe there is an interstellar war going on just 3,000 light years away....

[E]ven if there is never any way to exceed or circumvent the light-speed barrier, relatively nearby planets might still fight by hurling nuclear bombs at each other at 99 percent of light speed.... John Duezabou of Helena, Mont., adds this creepy postscript: “A bellicose or paranoid extra-solar civilization that could accelerate an object to 99 percent of light speed wouldn’t need to launch bombs at us. They could shoot anything with devastating results, because the kinetic energy of a moving object is half its mass multiplied by the square of its velocity, or KE = 1/2 mv2. Thus, one pound of anything — a pint of vanilla ice cream, for instance — accelerated to 99 percent of light speed has an energy of about 4.8 megatons, roughly the blast yield of the largest hydrogen bombs.”... 

Andrew comments:

Now, that a man who writes a sports column likes to fantasize about space wars and disaster movie plots is not news. That a widely-published man who is employed by the influential Brookings Institution... doesn’t have any sense of what that Einstein fellow was on about might be news...

My colleague comments:

  • Kinetic energy is not mv2/2--that is the low-energy Newtonian limit approximation--but rather m0c2[(1-(v/c)2)-1 - 1], which at a velocity of 0.99c is eleven times as great as the 4.8 megatons endorsed by Easterbrook.
  • It is not clear what gamma ray bursts are, but it is very clear that they are NOT the muzzle flashes of gigantic cannon launching kinetic projectiles to relativistic velocities.

UPDATE: Brad Johson of the Center for American Progress is on the case


John Maynard Keynes’s Private Letter to Franklin Delano Roosevelt of February 1, 1938

In which Keynes begs Roosevelt to undertake some real stimulative Keynesian policies--rather than merely the macroeconomic weak toast that was the New Deal:

John Maynard Keynes’s Private Letter to Franklin Delano Roosevelt of February 1, 1938

Also: Keynes urges Roosevelt to stop the deck chair-rearranging that was poorly thought-out structural reform--NIRA, PUHCA, anti-business rhetoric, et cetera.


We Are in the Recession

James Poterba just emailed, and now the NBER is live on Marketwatch:

U.S. recession began in December 2007, NBER says: By Rex Nutting: WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The U.S. economy entered a recession in December 2007, a committee of economists at the private National Bureau of Economic Research said Monday. The economy reached a peak in December and has been declining since, according to the business cycle dating committee of the NBER. The committee does not judge a recession as two consecutive quarterly declines in gross domestic product; rather, it looks at four key monthly economic indicators, including employment, industrial output and sales. Employment peaked in December.

I think that this was the right way to call it...