Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Economic Delusions of the Political Class(Spending=growth=deficit reduction)
Mises Institute ^ | August 16, 2011 | William L. Anderson

Posted on 08/17/2011 7:35:53 PM PDT by sickoflibs

The New York Times recently ran an "analysis" article entitled, "Debt Problem's Sure Cure: Economic Growth." This is something that falls into the category of "Gee, why didn't I think of that?" All you need is growth, so let's go get us some growth! That will take care of everything!

Journalist Catherine Rampell asserts, There is, in theory, a happy solution to our debt troubles. It's called economic growth. No need to raise taxes or cut programs. Just get the economy growing the way it used to.

Rampell admits that this is a dicey proposition. She holds to the belief that if we actually cut back on government spending and stop these "stimulus" projects, there will be a short-term "shock" that will drive down the economy. Of course, the short-term "shock" then will go long-term, so if we cut spending now, we will drive ourselves back into a deeper recession.

At one level, she is correct. Assume, for a second, that sanity were to prevail in Washington and Obama were to make an admission that his "green-energy" projects are a vast waste of resources. One could imagine a speech like this: "My fellow Americans, it is time we gave up the charade that we can replace, by force, our current energy systems with ethanol, windmill farms, and solar power. I am going to ask Congress to get rid of the energy mandates and unsustainable goals for producing 'green fuels,' and I will also review many of the EPA's regulations. I have come to realize that we cannot subsidize and mandate a depressed economy into recovery, and that our 'green initiatives' have only made things worse. We already have a dynamic energy industry, and we have to stop destroying one of the few semihealthy sectors of our economy."

One can imagine that a number of things would follow: The outcry among the greens and their political, academic, and media allies would be shrill; cries of anguish would run from one coast to another. Second, assuming he and Congress actually carried out these directives, another cry of anguish would come from people tied to the production and sales involving the "green-energy" apparatus.

There is no doubt that whole ethanol and electric-windmill plants would stand idle, and the countryside would be dotted with now-useless windmills. Lots of people tied to this whole infrastructure would lose their jobs, and there would be a spate of media stories about the personal troubles tied to their unemployment.

Like the ignorant bystanders in Bastiat's broken-window fallacy, many commentators simply are unwilling and intellectually unable to comprehend that their employment and production schemes are based on the fallacy of composition, in which it is assumed that what might be good for a select few always is good for the masses, and what is harmful to that select few also is harmful to society overall.

It's fine to endorse "economic growth," but we also need to know how economies actually grow in the first place. Unfortunately, the very things that this economy needs to grow involve repealing programs and laws that government and its interests like.

The idea of allowing entrepreneurs to move resources from lower-valued to higher-valued uses (as ultimately determined by consumers and discovered by entrepreneurs in a free market) is considered to be so repugnant that it is imperative that government impose an alternative "solution." So, instead of real entrepreneurship, we are left with windmill farms, ethanol, and a whole host of unsustainable schemes that so distort the economy that huge numbers of people are made worse off.

Why is real, free-market growth so hated by the political classes? There are three main reasons, the first of which is the reluctance of people to accept that consumer choice really should be what directs resources. For example, consumers by their selections have demonstrated that they prefer gasoline-powered automobiles and electricity that comes mostly from coal-fired electric generators.

"The political classes may be a lot of things, and they believe themselves to be many things, but one thing they will not accept under any circumstances is being irrelevant."It is not that consumers don't want other forms of transportation that might use less fuel, or that they hate windmills (although a lot of people living near windmills really do hate them). Instead, given the opportunity costs of fuels and transportation, as well as the way that these particular entities perform, consumers are showing their preferences for better, cheaper fuels.

Such thinking is anathema to the political classes, and so people associated with them hold that consumers need to be forced by state powers to make other choices. In a recent speech in Iowa to the Renewable Fuels Association, Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, not only gave his undying support to corn-based ethanol, but also said that the US government needs to mandate that consumers purchase "flex-fuel" cars. To put it another way, if consumers will not spend their money the way that a political insider like Gingrich would like, then the consumers need to be forced to do what Gingrich and his allies want.

Another reason is that the political classes refuse to see profits (and losses) in a free-market system as being a good thing. Instead, we hear constantly that profits are an unjust extraction of wealth from "the people," while losses are tragic and should not be permitted. When one explains that profits reflect the free movement of resources from lower-valued uses to higher-valued uses, such an explanation is ignored.

Third, and perhaps most important, a successful free-market system can operate without any help at all from the political classes. In fact, it works better when politically connected people are not involved in the economy at all, or at least as policy makers. The political classes may be a lot of things, and they believe themselves to be many things, but one thing they will not accept under any circumstances is being irrelevant.

Yes, economic growth would be a good thing for the US economy and other economies. However, because such growth can occur only within the bounds of a free-market system, the political classes will do everything they can to make an end run around markets and impose something that would make Rube Goldberg proud. In the end, they force the economy into depression and then place the blame on everyone but themselves.

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: deficits; economy; liberaldelusions; politicalclass; schifflist; stopspending
The Peter Schiff/Austrian Economics ping. (Washington Bankrupting our Nation by Spending your past, present and future money!)

If you realize both parties in Washington think that our money is theirs and you trust them to do the wrong thing, this list is for you.

If you think there is a Santa Claus that has some magic easy cure for the economy; someone who is going to get elected in Washington and fix everything just by cutting your taxes, investing (more government spending) a few trillion more we don't have and will never have, and who will just command some countries to lower their prices and others to raise their prices all to suit your best interests, then this list is not for you.

You can read past posts by clicking on : schifflist , I try to tag all relevant threads with the keyword : schifflist.

Ping list pinged by sickoflibs.

To join the ping list: FReepmail sickoflibs with the subject line 'add Schifflist'.

(Stop getting pings by sending the subject line 'drop Schifflist'.)

The Austrian Economics School’s Commandments plus :From : link

1) You cannot spend your way out of a recession
2) You cannot regulate the economy into oblivion and expect it to function
3) You cannot tax people and businesses to the point of near slavery and expect them to keep producing
4) You cannot create an abundance of money out of thin air without making all that paper worthless
5) The government cannot make up for rising unemployment by just hiring all the out of work people to be bureaucrats or send them unemployment checks forever
6) You cannot live beyond your means indefinitely
7) The economy must actually produce something others are willing to buy
8) Every government bureaucrat should keep the following motto in mind when attempting to influence the economy: “First, do no harm!”
9) Central bank-supported fractional reserve banking is an economically distorting, ethically questionable activity. In particular, no government should ever do anything to save any bank from the full consequences of a bank run, no matter what the short-term consequences.
10) Gold is God’s money.

Add mine:

1) Businesses don't hire workers just because of demand for products or services, they hire because it makes them money. Sorry to have to state the obvious.
2) Government spending without taxing is still redistribution
3) Taking one man's money and giving it to another is not a job.
4) Paul Krugman and Bernake have been wrong about everything, as well as the other best and brightest Keynesian's who have been fixing our economy for over a decade.
5) Republicans in the minority (esp out of the White House) act like Republicans, in the majority they act like Democrats .

Equity bubble rules:

1)If something goes up too fast, it is going down faster,
2) By the time it looks like everybody is getting rich, it’s too late, stay out!
3) To get rich you have to get in early start of recovery and get out at the first really 'bad' news, and ignore the experts that claim that they will stop the next crash(our buddy Bernake.).
4) Don't invest money you will probably need, or worse money you don't really have.

1 posted on 08/17/2011 7:36:02 PM PDT by sickoflibs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LMAO; DeaconBenjamin; April Lexington; murphE; RipSawyer; Tunehead54; preacher; 1234; coloradan; ...
The Peter Schiff/Austrian Economics ping. (Washington Bankrupting our Nation by Spending your past, present and future money!)

Yes, Democrats are arguing this again like they did for the stimulus in 2009.

2 posted on 08/17/2011 7:42:06 PM PDT by sickoflibs (If you pay zero Federal income taxes, don't say you are paying your 'fair share')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

consumers should redirect u.s. congressional resources to reflect God, the U.S. Constitution and free markets.

3 posted on 08/17/2011 7:50:34 PM PDT by ken21 (ruling class dem + rino progressives -- destroying america for 150 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks sickoflibs, and g’night all.

4 posted on 08/17/2011 8:54:12 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Yes, as a matter of fact, it is that time again --
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Another excellent article, particularly pertinent as we await the Grand Obama Jobs Plan which will be, in a nutshell: borrow even more money than has been previously agreed to, define some green and other programs that will put the union friends of the White House to work and then have Congress fund those programs.

But just don’t call this STIMULUS II.

5 posted on 08/18/2011 4:52:44 AM PDT by InterceptPoint (w)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint
RE :"But just don’t call this STIMULUS II."

I know someone here he works for SS admin main office in Maryland and he told me in 2009 that they had orders to NOT call the Obama Economic Recovery Act 'the stimulus bil'l when answering questions on the payments being sent out (lots of dead people got checks.) But the term stimulus was a favorite term used nightly MSNBC to justify more and more government spending.

6 posted on 08/18/2011 5:08:23 AM PDT by sickoflibs (If you pay zero Federal income taxes, don't say you are paying your 'fair share')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Still confusing how the political ruling class thinks that economic rules are different when you dealing with trillions. Bet they don’t spend themselves into prosperity.

Short version of the above.

When you outflow exceeds your income, your upkeep becomes your downfall.

7 posted on 08/18/2011 5:17:48 AM PDT by Texas resident (Hunkered Down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Good piece. Too bad it won’t be read by the economic illiterates in D.C., or in the newsrooms.

8 posted on 08/18/2011 5:25:56 AM PDT by andy58-in-nh (America does not need to be organized: it needs to be liberated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson