Saturday, April 04, 2009

Neo-Hooverite performance art

It's appropriate that this story appears in the NYT's Arts section, not Business or Politics.

This week competing theories about the Depression and the New Deal were once again on display at a conference at the Council on Foreign Relations’ New York headquarters, co-hosted by the Leonard N. Stern School of Business at New York University, and partly organized by Ms. Shlaes.


Didn't the CFR used to be a respected organization?

Labels: ,

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

Stimulus thinking

Nice to see David Leonhardt take on the neo-Hooverites.

The objections to stimulus tend to come in two forms: Its costs are too high, and its benefits too small.

Mr. Topolanek and German officials have been pressing the first argument. They say that the additional government spending can lead to inflation and government debt. The Weimar Republic of the 1920s, where inflation helped lead to Hitler’s rise, casts a long shadow.

Stimulus opponents here in the United States — mainly Congressional Republicans (though not, tellingly, Republican governors of some large states) — have been warning about debt, too. But they have also been making the second argument. When the government spends money, they say, it simply displaces spending by the private sector. Republicans on Capitol Hill have taken to citing a recent book by the journalist Amity Shlaes, “The Forgotten Man,” which claims the New Deal didn’t work.

Theoretically, neither of these arguments is crazy. But they don’t have much evidence on their side.

The best takedown of Ms. Shlaes’s thesis came from Eric Rauchway, a historian, who pointed out that her favorite statistic did not count people employed by New Deal programs to be employed. Excluding the effects of the medicine, the patient is as sick as ever! [sic]

When Roosevelt stuck to a stimulus program, unemployment fell markedly, and the biggest stimulus of all — World War II — did the rest. It’s true that economic models say the economy shouldn’t work this way. When resources are sitting idle, businesses should find a way to use them profitably. But they often don’t.

People become irrationally pessimistic during a downturn. They are driven by what Keynes called animal spirits. Only government can typically change the dynamic.


Labels: ,

Monday, March 23, 2009

Saab story

The last place I'd have expected to find neo-Hooverites would be in Sweden.

Admittedly, GM screwed up a great design and is now looking to dump the carcass of a great car company into the laps of the Swedish taxpayer, but passively allowing it to die seems...disproportionate.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, January 08, 2009

In which I wake up screaming

Imagine if McCain had won.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

The new neo-Hooverite solutions

Cut the corporate tax. This seems to be the prevailing brilliant idea of those who, given the chance, would have voted for a second Hoover term.

Cato’s Chris Edwards offers his proposal for warding off depression: “What Obama should do is a pass a large corporate tax rate cut, which would spur long-run growth.” Yes, neo-Hooverism taken to new and exciting heights allowing everyone to dust off the Keynes line about how in the long-run we’re all dead in an appropriate context.
Amity Schlaes goes still further. Cut the corporate tax and the capital gains tax.

During the years when the housing bubble was growing to ever more dangerous levels the Washington Post could never find room for an oped piece warning of its dangers. There were so many more issues that were more important than an $8 trillion housing bubble.

However, just over three months ago the Post did find room for a piece telling readers that the economy was really just fine and that the people complaining were a bunch of whiners. In this proud tradition, the Post has an oped column today by Amity Schlaes that tells readers the best way to deal with the economic downturn is to cut the corporate income tax and virtually eliminate the capital gains tax.


Yes, that Amity Schlaes.

And the same Amity Schlaes who doesn't like capital gains taxes, thought the real problem with The New Deal was higher wages.

Labels:

Monday, December 22, 2008

Neo-Hooverite of the Day

Lamar Alexander.

Mr. Alexander, the senior senator from Tennessee and chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, offers the usual invocations about seeking agreement with his former colleague who is moving into the White House. Indeed, he likens Mr. Obama’s moment to his own election 30 years ago as a reform-minded governor who received cooperation from a Democratic-controlled Legislature in Nashville.

Yet the Washington of today no more resembles Nashville than it resembled Austin, Tex., where Gov. George W. Bush served as a self-styled “uniter, not a divider.” And Mr. Alexander’s interpretation of the Election Day verdict hardly matches that of whom he calls the “hyper-partisan” Democrats on Capitol Hill.

“The change that people voted for was a change in management,” he said in an interview. “If they think the change the country elected them to provide was a lurch to the left, they’re in for a big surprise.”

What is a lurch to the left? Big spending, among other things. As Obama advisers prepare an economic stimulus program approaching $1 trillion for swift Congressional action, Mr. Alexander sounded a note of caution. “I don’t even want to think about a number that big,” he said. “We’re going to have to have a long discussion about what kind of stimulus package.”

[...]

“I’m skeptical about subsidies for energy,” said Mr. Alexander, 68, a member of the Appropriations Committee. Instead of financing “giant wind turbines” — a power source he has long criticized — “I’d much rather spend that money on energy research.”

Ah, irony. Research is important and I'm pretty sure it will be a part of Obama's agenda. But putting people to work seems to be a foreign concept to Republican leadership.

Labels: , ,

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com Site Meter