Yet Another Krugman Kontradiction?
Help me out here, Krugman sympathizers: For a while now he has been making two different arguments that seem in conflict.
On the one hand, he has been savaging that “austerians” for pointing to historical examples of an expansionary episode of government budget cutting, by saying that all of these cases are inapplicable to our times. For example just today he wrote:
Early last year, many people on both sides of the Atlantic seized on the idea that less is more — that cutting spending would actually help, not hinder, recovery. There was a paper by Alesina and Ardagna that seemed to provide evidence to that effect, and nothing succeeds like telling people what they want to hear.
Since then, the whole intellectual edifice has collapsed. The Alesina et al methodology turns out to be deeply flawed, which should have been obvious from the start (and was, to some of us.) The alleged cases of expansionary austerity have, without exception, turned out to be bad examples, either involving cuts when the economy was booming or situations in which sharp interest rate declines and/or currency depreciations were the actual sources of expansion.
Note that I put the important point in bold above. In a post yesterday, he said something very similar:
I have, in the past, used Sweden’s experience in the 1990s to illustrate the difficulties we face in recovering from a global financial crisis: Sweden recovered from crisis, but it did so only by devaluing its currency and moving from trade deficit to trade surplus, a route that’s not available to the world as a whole (unless we can find another planet to trade with).
OK so the point is clear: The Republicans who say the U.S. should cut its budget right now–and point to historical examples of countries doing just that and expanding their economies–are sleazy, because the world as a whole can’t depreciate its currency and boost exports to Mars.
Fine, fair enough.
But wait a second. When it comes to Krugman’s discussions of the euro, suddenly the rules change. Here’s Krugman from March 27 explaining why some countries are suffering under the euro:
I think Dean Baker and I are converging on deficits and independent currencies. He asserts that having your own currency makes a big difference — you can still end up like Zimbabwe, but not like Greece right now. I’m fine with that.
Specifically, the reason Greece (and Ireland, and Portugal, and to some extent Spain) are in so much trouble is that by adopting the euro they’ve left themselves with no good way out of the aftereffects of the pre-2008 bubble. To regain competitiveness, they need massive deflation; but that deflation, in addition to involving an extended period of very high unemployment, worsens the real burden of their outstanding debt. Countries that still have their own currencies don’t face the same problems.
So correct me if I’m wrong here, but it sounds like Krugman is saying to the PIGS (not PIIGS mind you) that if they just had their own currencies that they could depreciate, they’d be better off. But how? Are Martians only willing to import Guinness but not Michelob? (I don’t blame them if so.)
This is another great example of a Krugman Kontradiction. It’s not a literal contradiction. Rather, it’s that Krugman uses one set of rules to call his opponents awful names, and then changes the rules when he’s pushing his own policies. Scott Sumner has nailed Krugman on this type of thing several times (though I’m not going to dig up the links).
Tom Woods vs. Mark Levin
One of my favorite Free Advice posts (yes I have favorites) was my reaction to Mark Levin’s response to a critique by Jim Manzi. If you go refresh your memory–or read it for the first time, if you’re new–you’ll see that Levin does the rhetorical equivalent of kicking people in the family jewels when the ref’s distracted.
Come now to Tom Woods, who had argued that the president of the United States doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to wage a non-defensive (some might say “offensive”) war without consulting Congress. Levin responded, Tom responded, Levin responded on Facebook, and then Tom issued this challenge:
Mark Levin, here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article – whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.
If I’m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.
Now that’s pretty bold. I mean, Alexander Hamilton could’ve gotten drunk and fired off a Letter to the Editor of the New York Observer saying the Navy should shell Ireland or something; Tom can’t have literally read every single thing the Federalists ever wrote and spoke publicly. But that’s what he said, so confident was he.
Consulting Congress? Now, notice how the outlier professor changes the subject. I’ve been at this now for the better part of a week. I’ve explained my position on radio, on Fox, and on this site. I think it is extremely wise for a president to consult with Congress (well, not all 535 members but members in leadership positions) before launching non-defensive military actions for both policy and political reasons. In fact, most presidents claim to have done so in one form or another respecting most military operations. I cannot imagine any Federalist would have argued against a president consulting with Congress. Why would they? But that was not the issue. Consulting Congress is a far cry from arguing that a president is required, as a constitutional requisite to military operations, to secure a declaration of war.
That should make you do a double-take. With such confidence Levin breezes through, as if Tom has missed the point (and hence Levin doesn’t need to dig up any examples). Here’s Tom’s reaction:
Mark, the point is not and has never been whether it is wise for the president to consult Congress. The point is whether he is allowed to conduct offensive operations without consulting them. That is your position.
And I have shown that there is zero — ZERO — evidence that the Constitution allows this. Levin’s ham-handed evasion of my challenge has only amplified my point. I am changing the subject, he says….Levin’s position is that the president may launch offensive operations without consulting Congress. I deny that this was any part of the original constitutional intent. That is the entirety of the disagreement between us. Whether it would be nice for the president to consult Congress, whether it’s practical for him to do so, etc., are entirely irrelevant to a discussion of this specific issue. Those are forms of evasion, as even Levin’s own followers are capable of seeing.
I only disagree with Tom on one point: I’m not sure Levin’s own followers are capable of seeing this, at least judging by their comments on his Facebook posts. A bunch of them kept guffawing at the “liberal Marxist college professor” Tom Woods.
The Strangest Secret
Earl Nightingale here gives a re-make of his famous audio recording. There are two earlier parts but I think this captures its essence.
Are You Ready for Bretton Woods II?
A lot of people think I’m nuts for claiming that the only sensible explanation for Bernanke’s policies, is that he’s setting up the dollar for a crash to be replaced by some other currency. Does it help my case that George Soros’ Bretton Woods II conference starts in two weeks? Here’s an excerpt from the official website (HT2 Dan Gainor):
CRISIS and RENEWAL: International Political Economy at the Crossroads, April 8-11, 2011
INET [Institute for New Economic Thinking] is pleased to announce that it will hold its annual conference April 8-11, 2011 at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, the scene of the great conference that established a renewed global economic architecture as World War II drew to a close.
Today, as the aftershocks of our own Global Finance Crisis continue to reverberate, we face our own challenge of reconstruction. The 1944 conference was, famously, largely an Anglo-American affair, whereas today’s reconstruction must engage the larger European Union, as well as the emerging economies of Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Asia. In the years since the 1944 conference, the globalization of production, trade, and especially finance, has transformed our economy, but has not yet transformed our system of regulation or our tools of policy intervention. Indeed, our very habits of thought and speech lag behind the realities that we desperately need to think and speak about.
This conference reflects INET’s dedication to inspiring and provoking new economic thinking. More than 200 academic, business and government policy thought leaders from around the world will be attending. Speakers include the former United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Mark Carney, Paul Volcker; George Soros, Adair Turner, Joseph Stiglitz, and Harold James. Scroll down this page to see a list of all confirmed speakers.
Hmm, my invitation must have gotten lost in the mail.
Murphy Discusses the Ber-Nank with the Judge
Check out how the producer described me in the pop-up graphic. What is right-wing TV coming to these days? Bill Buckley must be rolling over in his grave.
Can a Christian Be an Anarchist?
This is the post that many atheist anarcho-capitalists have been fearing I would eventually make, but I don’t think it’s as bad as you might be worrying…
A while ago Gene Callahan pointed out in one of our numerous arguments that Satan’s offense was his rebellion against authority. So Gene’s point was, how can I as a Christian be upholding a political ideology (i.e. libertarianism in the Rothbardian tradition) that celebrates the rejection of authority?
In contrast to some of his other barbs, this one really resonated with me. I had been trying to reconcile some apparently contradictory positions for a while, and this issue really brought things into focus.
I have decided that I will no longer refer to myself as an anarchist, not because I reject the views I’ve been expressing on “market anarchy” or “anarcho-capitalism” (e.g. here) for years. Rather, I just don’t think the term “anarchist” is really an accurate description of my worldview.
Before I give my reasons, let me give a disclaimer: I think “our side” spends way too much time worrying about labels. If you want to continue to call me an anarcho-capitalist, that’s fine with me. And I don’t think the American public will suddenly embrace my worldview because of a marketing tweak. But I do think it’s important to be clear on how I reconcile my Christian theology with Rothbardian secular views.
First and foremost, I am a Christian. I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior.
Now, does someone rule over me? Yes, His name is Jesus Christ. That’s what I just said.
So, does that mean I’m a free man or not? Well, that’s a complicated question. I agree with Bob Dylan that you have to serve someone (and it may be the devil or it may be the Lord). In other words, the way our minds and souls work, I don’t think it’s truly possible to “answer only to yourself.” I understand atheist libertarians disagree with me, and I totally get where you’re coming from; I would have raised a beer to you back in college while we made fun of the slavish Christians.
(I will say that I never really felt comfortable with Paul calling himself a “bondservant of Christ.” You can complain that the deck is stacked against you, but God doesn’t force you to serve Him. That’s kind of the whole point of the world.)
The older I get, and the more I experience, the more certain I am that people are slaves to their sin. Let’s say you see somebody acting obnoxiously at a party. I’m betting that person deep down is really insecure about something and is (perhaps subconsciously) trying to divert attention from it. For another example, when I watch Charlie Sheen, I don’t get all worked up about what an arrogant jerk he is. Rather, I am on the one hand impressed with just how far he’s taken his viewpoint, and second, I’m sad that he is trying ever so hard to convince himself that he’s special.
So this is the sense in which you can only be free if you are in submission to God’s will. God loves us; we are His children. He didn’t lay down a bunch of arbitrary rules just to get kicks out of His raw power. No, His rules are for our own good. If we do the things that Jesus commanded us to do–love our enemies, judge not others, remove the plank from our own eyes before telling someone else to remove the speck from his eye–we will lead more successful lives, even by our own criteria for success.
You can’t be a “good person” while rejecting God’s rules. You might think you can, but that’s because the corruption of sin is very deep and it’s hard to disentangle its insidious effects. Since I’m already mixing politics and religion, I can draw on an analogy with interventionism: A statist Keynesian can think he cares just as much about helping the poor and unemployed, even though he rejects the libertarian’s “faith-based” respect for property rights. But he’s fooling himself. He doesn’t see that it is precisely his willingness to violate these “sacred” laws that is causing (or at least exacerbating) the very ills he thinks he’s tackling much more directly than the libertarian.
So by the same token, if you really want to help other people, to “do good” in this world, then the single most important thing you can do is to educate yourself about the existence of a loving God, and then share that wonderful news with others. That is more important than feeding the hungry or ending a foreign occupation. And what’s more, the more people who sincerely believed in these truths, the easier it would be to feed the poor and stop militarism. I say this, fully aware of the fact that evangelical Christians are among the strongest supporters of the U.S. military. I’m still trying to discover exactly why this is, but I think a large part of it is that they have a lot of fear–which is inconsistent with their professed faith in an omnipotent Savior.
Now then, what about my political views? It’s quite simple, really. Since I serve the Lord Jesus Christ, who not only made the heavens and the Earth, but humbled Himself to come down in human form and be tortured to death for our sakes, then you can see why I’m not so hot on George W. Bush or Barack Obama.
Coming back to Gene Callahan’s point: I reject the modern State because it rests on a fundamental hubris, namely that a bunch of men (and women) can declare laws by fiat. No they can’t. Not a group of experts, not even 51% of voters, can make something legal that should really be illegal. This includes “taxation” (which is an antiseptic word for theft) and “regime change” (which is an antiseptic term for mass murder).
In summary, I am not an anarchist. I do serve someone, Jesus Christ. He is the ruler of the universe, not only because, well, He’s omnipotent, but also because He has earned the right through His actions. (The God in Whom I believe literally created every atom in the universe, so even on Rothbardian terms, He literally owns us, with far more justification than we think the shareholders of a private zoo own the gorillas.)
Yet even though I’m not an anarchist–I don’t “reject authority” by any stretch–I do reject the false claims of sovereignty made by modern governmental officials. I reject the very notion of the modern State as a repugnant institution of systematic lawlessness. Indeed it’s precisely because of my Christian worldview that I can level such a strong charge against the State. I can say, “This organization facilitates widespread injustices that are offensive to God, and therefore I cannot in good conscience support it.” In contrast, an atheist libertarian is going to have a much harder time to distinguish his objections from merely claiming, “Hey, I personally don’t like how this is going, so stop it.”
Comments
Not sure what happened, but for some reason all the commenting capability got turned off. I manually opened it up for the last two posts, but any WordPress scholars know what happened?
Paul Krugman Agrees With Bob Roddis For Once
Details here. Bye bye, Modern Monetary Theory.
Recent Comments