“Stimulunacy” – (On The Bailout Series)

Sigh.

While the various interest groups disagree over what the hundreds of billions should be spent on, they all buy into the superstition that government spending boosts “demand”. In fact, it does no such thing. A year from now, when the “stimulus” has disappeared without a trace and unemployment is higher than it is now, economists will be claiming that the “stimulus” bill was too small, or was spent on the wrong things, or that “consumers saved the money instead of spending it”. Superstition is notoriously impervious to facts.

The definition of “insanity” is, “doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result”. Given the failure of “stimulus” everywhere and every time it has been tried (the U.S. in the 1930s, 2001, and 2008, Japan in the 1990s, etc.), Keynesianism is actually a form of insanity. Accordingly, let’s call the belief in stimulus “stimulunacy” and the people who believe in stimulus “stimulunatics”.

As they battle to the death over the specific allocation of the spending (infrastructure, aid to the States, food stamps, tax rebates, etc.) the stimulunatics ignore the one thing that all such plans have in common. The very first step in every “stimulus” program is for the government to go out into the market and sell bonds.

When the government sells bonds, it takes money—and therefore demand—out of the economy. Then, some time later, the government puts the money back into the economy in the form of spending or tax rebates or whatever. Later, when the data becomes available, economists are shocked, shocked to find that “consumers saved their rebates” or “business investment fell by an unexpected amount”, or “imports increased”, thus completely negating the “stimulus”. Their hopes dashed, but their belief in “stimulus” unshaken, the stimulunatics then call for more “stimulus”.

[...]

While it is not possible for the Federal government to stimulate “demand”, it is possible to stimulate private business investment. It is private business investment that directly creates both employment and GDP growth.

The most potent way to stimulate private business investment in the U.S. would be to abolish the corporate income tax. Based upon recent CBO numbers, eliminating the entire corporate income tax would cost only about $326 billion the first year. This is less than half of the money that the stimulunatics are planning to pour down their various rat holes this year.
[Link: Real Clear Markets]

About these ads

6 Responses

  1. I would caution this line of analysis by saying that government spending can “crowd out” or “crowd in” other demand. So it is not always the case that spending money is bad.

    The blog Calculated Risk has been exceptionally good, and I have added it to my RSS reader along with Economist’s View

    That said, much of the money will be wasted. [1]

    [1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2009/01/16/where-will-the-stimulus-money-go.html

  2. Hey, the government can always print more money? There’s nothing to be worried about. Democrats can create wealth for us all.

  3. Dan, I think the stimulus prescription of Keynesian economists is wrong. A stimulus spending plan has never lifted a nation out of a recession. Also, most of the one being proposed by the Dems seems to be the normal pork and/or for long term things. I have seen what the WI governor is asking for, is 75%.+ pork. The stimulus has the effect of empowering a small mostly centralized group of bureaucrats and politician to make investment / spending decisions instead of (through taxes and by eating up available investment funds) of a widely diverse multitude of companies, consumers, and localities. At best these decisions will be suboptimal.

    At worst, they will be used to prop up businesses that should fail, build government things that taxpayers have said they don’t want, prop up mortgage holders who can’t pay mortgages (mostly through their own fraud), incur future increased costs (by building surplus of things like school buildings), lock us into not ready for prime time green technologies, and reward powerful lobbies.

    It does looks like Obama want to do the Smart Grid (network or enhanced power grids) and that is a good a thing and should be done regardless of the economic situation.

    So there is at least some spending on true infrastructure public goods that would be okay.

  4. Keynesian economics is wrong, period. That is how it is.

    t does looks like Obama want to do the Smart Grid (network or enhanced power grids) and that is a good a thing and should be done regardless of the economic situation.

    Except that Barack here will be using Hawaii temperatures for the White House.

    A sort of Enron mentality here.

  5. I thought the temperature thing was funny. The press would have had a field day with that sort of hypocrisy from Bush 43.

    I do favour a smart grid that energy entrepreneurs could utilize, except for Nuclear, there are not other viable alternative energies…yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 224 other followers

%d bloggers like this: