Tag: Keynes

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies

Blame for the Shutdown

A fascinating short account of what a “government shutdown” means, courtesy of the BBC, wraps up in an odd way: “If the U.S. government shuts down after 8 April, it will mostly be because Republicans believe that the government is too costly and inefficient.”

Really?

It’s not because Congress can’t balance budgets? It’s not because last year’s Democratic-controlled Congress couldn’t even cook up an unbalanced budget, instead relying on a series of makeshift “continuing resolutions”?

Why blame Republicans’ general view of government services, and not the political process described at the beginning of the report?

Well, the BBC’s Katie Connolly was stretching the truth so to get to a series of “ironies.” Government shutdowns are expensive, she writes. Inefficient.

Sure, sure. But if the government does indeed shut down because of a budget impasse, I don’t see that the “irony” of a shutdown accrues as blame only to Republicans.

Indeed, it seems a bit like flailing around, looking for usual suspects — not real culprits.

But if you want a reach. . . .

Politicians often pay homage to John Maynard Keynes to excuse their spending far over revenue. Stimulus and all that. Keynesianism: Politicians love it, because they love to over-spend.

But Keynes also said that governments should run at surplus during good times. Somehow the Rs and Ds in Washington never bring that up.

So blame the Ks.

The Keynesians allowed the misuse of their master’s nostrums, which put us where we are today.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets ideological culture national politics & policies too much government

Déjà vu Economics

Last week I noted the revival of interest in F.A. Hayek’s classic political tract, The Road to Serfdom. This week? The ongoing revival of interest in Hayek’s theory of boom and bust.

According to economist Gerald P. O’Driscoll, Jr., today’s debate about stimulus spending mirrors the debate in the Great Depression between John Maynard Keynes and Hayek. Republished letters from October, 1932, Times of London, are eerily up-to-date.

The letter from Keynes and his allies, arguing that spending — any spending whatsoever — would spring the economy out of depression strikes me as a tad bizarre. All spending is equal? Make that several tads bizarre.

Can you say déjà vu?

The Hayekian response seems at once more sophisticated as well as commonsensical. For instance, Hayek recommended an immediate repeal of the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff. He recognized a major factor for the Depression’s low expectations and business doldrums: The trade-killing legislation that hit the New York Times’s front page the day before Black Tuesday, 1929.

O’Driscoll and other economists have been making much of the enduring significance of the Hayek-Keynes debate. But there are differences between the Depression and now, aren’t there?

Back then, the loss part of the profit-and-loss system hadn’t been so completely undermined by recovery policy. Today we have bailouts, and these only increase risk-taking, likely to make the next bust even bigger — and today’s Keynesianism perhaps worse than the disease itself.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.