Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in To stimulate or not to stimulate

Re: To stimulate or not to stimulate

Dave Peterson — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:47:59 -0000

Good job Russ.

Even though I usually disagree with Reich, I will say he's a sharp guy and I have lots of respect for the man.

Re: To stimulate or not to stimulate

Sam Grove — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:57:21 -0000

There seems to be at least two different histories.

There is the official progressive version of history, and there is what really happened, the unremembered history.

Re: To stimulate or not to stimulate

dg lesvic — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:57:04 -0000

Merge,

Robert Kuttner, one of the foremost of our leftist "economists," in The American Prospect, August 12, 2002, referred to the supposed "laissez faire world of the 1920s" as actually a world of "regulation" that the New Deal merely "added new teeth to," and to a "wrongly maligned Hoover administration...much more sensibly economic interventionist than the current Bush administration."

And that ought to have been interventionist enough for anyone.

Re: To stimulate or not to stimulate

MnM — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:38:12 -0000

Inconvenient for who? What possible motive does dg lesvic have for slandering President Hoover?

Re: To stimulate or not to stimulate

muirgeo — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:09:17 -0000

"And that was not the first time that had been pointed out to you. Why do you continue to ignore it,..."

dg lesvic

Cause it is not true. It is a re-write of inconvenient history. Hoovers big phrase was recovery is just around the corner. He did pretty much nothing his first year and a half as the economy just sank more and more into depression.

Re: To stimulate or not to stimulate

dg lesvic — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:10:25 -0000

Merge,

You wrote:

"We can sit an do nothing... and get out of your way as you say... as Hoover did and watch the system crash even further and further."

But just a few postings above yours, I had pointed out that "Hoover was the first of the "moderate" Republicans (other than TR), and the real founder of the New Deal, unwilling to just stand by and let the people suffer, let things hit bottom, and start back up again."

And that was not the first time that had been pointed out to you. Why do you continue to ignore it, and why the fables if there was a real tale to tell, why always the imaginary laissez faire preceding disaster if there had ever been a real one?

But, I forgive you, for at least you would no longer force your folly on others, and are as much an overall voluntarist as anyone.

So, you may still be miserable, but no longer a miserable bastard.

Congratulations!

Re: To stimulate or not to stimulate

Randy — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:38:19 -0000

Muirgeo,

"Now do you want me to go through your list of inventions and show you how many were created directly,indirectly or funded by government agencies?"

Don't you mean the times that the political class claimed credit for things they had nothing to do with? The times that they stepped in after the fact and attached regulations to new inventions in order to increase their revenue stream? Or the times that they used revenue taken from the productive class to invest in inventions of the productive class that showed promise of bringing in new revenue to the political class? The claims of value added are nothing but empty claims.

Re: To stimulate or not to stimulate

Scott — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:09:44 -0000

I'm enjoying the program, Russ, but why aren't you specifically calling out the ridiculous premise that Keynesian economics works, or that government can and should be creating jobs at all? Why aren't you ridiculing the idea that government spending should be centered around the callers that wanted spending on the idiotic "green" and "gender" programs? You should also be ripping that clown Reich to shreds on almost every topic, especially with his insistence that "demand-side" solutions will work.

You're being much too sympathetic to these ideas with your softspoken and somewhat equivocal responses.

Re: To stimulate or not to stimulate

muirgeo — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:59:30 -0000

“Get the hell out of my way!”

Posted by: Michael Smith

Wow that was pretty melodramatic. Now do you want me to go through your list of inventions and show you how many were created directly,indirectly or funded by government agencies?

We did Get the Hell out of the way and that allowed Walmart to change from it's theme of Made in America to Made in China driving down wages and ultimatly crashing this economy. Along with other trickle down economic bull crap such as tax cuts and other changes in law that drove all the money to the top and starved out the middle class.

No one is standing in your way or in the way of the wealthy elite. The problem is you/they can't find any buyers because no one has money. The middle class has millions of people close to bankruptcy trying to payoff their ever increasing credit cards with ever increasing interest rates.

No one is saving money.. they are going deeper in debt just to stay afloat.

We can sit an do nothing... and get out of your way as you say... as Hoover did and watch the system crash even further and further. Then you can blame the democratic party for taking so long to clean up your massively horrendous mess.

Trickle down supply side economics created the last depression and it created this one. Demand side economics got us out of the last depression and will ultimately clean up the mess made by Getting out of the Way".

Re: To stimulate or not to stimulate

The_Repentant_Curmudgeon — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:59:00 -0000

Oh, one more point. Reich is the very essence of the word glib. And he has a great radio voice. Could there be a better messenger for a message with no argument?

Re: To stimulate or not to stimulate

The_Repentant_Curmudgeon — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:50:39 -0000

I love it! Despite Neal's repeating Russ's name God knows how many times, Robert Reich would only refer to Mr. Roberts as "your other guest." Reich has always been an arrogant ass, and he still is.

Re: To stimulate or not to stimulate

dg lesvic — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:10:47 -0000

For those who believe that the "government" must do something:

"Harding (elected in 1920) inherited...one of the sharpest recessions in American history. By July 1921 it was all over and the economy was booming again. Harding had done nothing except cut government expenditure."

Modern Times by Paul Johnson, P 216

Hoover was the first of the "moderate" Republicans (other than TR), and the real founder of the New Deal, unwilling to just stand by and let the people suffer, let things hit bottom, and start back up again. And between himself and Roosevelt, they never did start back up again, until we'd had the Great Depression, World War II, and they were both safely out of office.

And you want the same thing all over again?

Re: To stimulate or not to stimulate

MnM — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 06:45:29 -0000

I'll second Randy. Very well said, Mr. Smith.

Re: To stimulate or not to stimulate

vidyohs — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:51:42 -0000

Okay, I give up and confess that I am a total failure.

I have spent the last 45 years of my life looking for that packet of guarantees that emerged from my mothers womb clinched tightly in my little fist.

Can't find that packet anywhere.

Without the documentation contained in that packet I can't prove to the government that I deserve a buffer or protection from suffering the rigors of hardship.

WHERE IS MY DAMN PACKET OF GUARANTEES? Fema get your ass down to Houston and bring me a new one, my life is a disaster without it!

BTW, the rant was because of the closing statement by Robert Reich about doing something to prevent Americans from suffering hardship.

I LOVE HARDSHIP! It is what makes people tough and sharp, stop trying to take it away from people, it will make them tough and sharp....at least the good ones. We can bury the weak ones, plenty of public land for that.

Damn, but you gotta recognize how tough times are in America right now......for Christs sake that lady in Moscow, Idaho might not get her arts center done soon! Com'on people, those are some really tough times! Can't we all just bleed some cash for her and her pretty project, why should she have to suffer hardships like that?

Then, OH MY GOD, then it is so tough out there that in the doleing out of money to massive construction projects we have the hardship of deciding how much is to be shunted to the female gender (and the left wingers who pretend to be). GOOOOLLY Gosh, who should have to live in such desparate times?

I read the book, but no one ever told me that Wonderland would look so much like America. Alice YOO HOO, where are you dear girl?

Re: To stimulate or not to stimulate

Randy — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:38:24 -0000

Michael Smith,

Outstanding!

Re: To stimulate or not to stimulate

michaelsmith — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:21:34 -0000

Muirgeo wondered:

“I'd be curious what the non-interventionist expect to create economic growth.”

Go stand in a Wal-Mart and look at the vast array of products for sale there. Who created those products?

Who conceived of them, designed and tested them, figured out how to produce them, figured out how to package them, did the necessary market studies to determine the appropriate pricing and how much production capacity would be needed, set-up the required production equipment, built the necessary tooling, found the facilities in which to house the equipment, procured the necessary raw materials for production, hired and trained the workers to build them, set-up the appropriate quality control procedures, arranged for shipment, set-up all the accounting procedures for keeping the necessary books, and arranged the financing to cover all the costs until sales revenues begin flowing in?

Who invented steel refining, copper production, aluminum refining, concrete manufacturing, the internal combustion engine, the automobile, the mass-production assembly line, steam turbines for electricity production, the incandescent light bulb, the airplane, the helicopter, the diesel locomotive, the electric dynamo, alternating current, refrigeration, fertilizers, insecticides, antibiotics, vitamins, enriched bread, xerography, the telephone, radio, television, the transistor, the microchip, oil derricks, oil refineries, air conditioning, refrigeration, the microwave oven, the cell phone, radial tires, anti-lock brakes, air bags, the jet engine, jet airplanes, supertankers for transporting oil, the electron microscope, contact lenses, laser surgery, Ipods, pocket calculators, organ transplants, x-ray machines, magnetic resonance imaging machines, coronary pace-makers, coronary by-pass shunts, power tools, cordless tools, frozen dinners, fast food restaurants, food preservatives, blood pressure medicine, artificial insulin, hypodermic syringes, fluorescent lighting, anti-perspirants, toothpaste, electric toothbrushes, dental floss, anti-bacterial soap, shampoo, cosmetics, plastics like nylon, polyester and polyethylene, permanent press clothing, instant photography, digital cameras, compact discs, laporscopic surgery, chemotherapy, personal computers, ink jet printers, laser printers, fiber optics -- just to name a few things.

Who creates and makes possible this vast flow of products and services that make your life so safe and comfortable?

Government bureaucrats? No.

Government regulators? No.

Elected officials? No.

Unions? Not a bit of it.

Private, profit-seeking entrepreneurs, creators, inventors, scientists, investors and businessmen did it -- despite all the obstacles, strangling regulations, theft-taxes and controls erected by government to slow and prevent it.

You want to know how to “stimulate” the people and the process that creates this life-saving and life-enhancing stream of products -- not a single one of which you are capable of ever conceiving and creating? In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt has told you what to do, with a single statement to all the parasite-looters and blood-sucking government bureaucrats and planners of the world:

“Get the hell out of my way!”

Re: To stimulate or not to stimulate

Mcwop — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:26:53 -0000

Muirgeo writes:

Didn't government investing in the Net and microprocessors speed up their use and thus the demand and eventually contribute to the massive growth related to IT.

But the government is talking about paving roads, and not building microprocessors. What is the return on roads? Aren't roads contributing to environmental destruction? Where will wind be placed? Here in Maryland they are blocking it from being put anywhere, just like the Kennedy's did in MA.

I can't wait to grab my popcorn and watch the massive fight over the infrastructure dollars, which will probably be disproportionately allocated to the high electoral, and fiscally irresponsible states (CA).

Here in Maryland we spend tons on highway walls, to protect people that bought houses next to the highway for noise. Return on those projects is probably negative. This will be a boondoggle, and only stimulative to the extent it employs people that lost their job in house construction.

Re: To stimulate or not to stimulate

Randy — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:22:55 -0000

Muirgeo,

"So if ultimately the government investing in [place favorite subsidy here] makes these products more competitive then private industry will pick up on new demand for these products and return [place politically motivated expectation here]..."

Sure, that's one way to look at it. Another way is that such programs are simply payoffs from the political class to it favorites.

Re: To stimulate or not to stimulate

Randy — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:16:17 -0000

Paul Williams,

"I congratulate the inbound Obama team for trying SOMETHING."

A great example of, "Something must be done, this is something, therefore it must be done". I think that what Russell and others are doing is saying "Whoa, hold on a minute, let's think this through". And I suggest to you that maybe throwing our children and grand children's future at the problem isn't the right thing to do - that perhaps a little belt tightening might be in order.

Re: To stimulate or not to stimulate

Randy — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:10:50 -0000

Lee Kelly,

"...and their preferred victim is the future taxpayer."

That is the key insight to this whole bloody business. If I were a "futute taxpayer" I'd be pissed off - but the "future taxpayers" are mostly Obama fans.

Re: To stimulate or not to stimulate

muirgeo — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:56:09 -0000

Babinich,

Just like any other investor or entrepreneur they use borrowed dollars hopefully to turn a profit. Don't private banks and companies essentially borrow money from the fed to invest and ultimately stimulate the economy? So if ultimately the government investing in wind and solar and the electric grid makes these products more competitive then private industry will pick up on new demand for these products and return much more then 1 dollar for ever dollar the government invested.

Didn't government investing in the Net and microprocessors speed up their use and thus the demand and eventually contribute to the massive growth related to IT.

"“The one really great man I ever knew and for who I had unbound admirations."

F A Hayek (on Keynes)

Re: To stimulate or not to stimulate

Paul Williams — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:47:23 -0000

Dr Roberts,

What would you have the government do? To do nothing to soften the blow would put millions of Americans out of work, causing a spiral of spending decrease (both personal and business) followed by more layoffs. I congratulate the inbound Obama team for trying SOMETHING. Perhaps you have a constructive alternative you could share on this blog rather than a pithy dismissal.

In fairness, I didn't (and typically don't) listen to podcasts, I just read the blogs. Podcasts are incompatible with filling time at the cube farm. I really would like to read about your alternative.

Kind Regards,

~ Paul

Re: To stimulate or not to stimulate

Babinich — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:35:13 -0000

muirgeo on Jan 6, 2009 @ 1:52:08 AM

"It seems to me if the government is the only one who can both borrow , hire and spend to invest in the future with hopes for a positive return on its investment it makes sense as the best choice to start to grow us out of this economic slump."

Specifics please...

Hire who for what jobs? Spend for the future with what (whose) money? Where does that money come from?

What happens when the slump is over? Does the government bow out of the "everything AND the kitchen sink" business?

Re: To stimulate or not to stimulate

Lee Kelly — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:24:40 -0000

Dr. Roberts,

I enjoyed your contribution to the dialogue on NPR :)

Okay, this is my last comment for now, honest.

Re: To stimulate or not to stimulate

dg lesvic — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:22:00 -0000

We interupt this broadcast with a very important announcement. The beginning of the world has arrived. The infamous, immovable Muirgeo has now come completely over to our side. He had already come a long way toward it, with his concession to states' rights, and now has come all the way, agreeing to completely live and let live. And while he doesn't think we can live without his tax-supported state, he's willing to let us try. And that's all we've ever needed of him.

So, now that we've won over the toughest of them all, we know how to win over the lesser Muirgeos.