Category Archives: Economy

The Craven Krugman

Debt, Economy, Political Economy, Pseudo-intellectualism

A reader has forwarded a recent editorial by Paul Krugman, “Mugged by the Moralizers.” Attached was the following incredulous note:

“[This editorial] is the perfect inversion of morality and logic, in the name of justifying taking money from people to give it to other people.
It is so calm and composed a statement of the credo of cave dweller-takers by force that I felt obliged to pass it along as a perfect exhibition piece. I’ve never seen anything so useful like this. Maybe he decided to let all the stops out in the days before the election.”

Leave aside the moral void, you can drive a 4X4 through Krugman’s logical lacunae:

For example: The idea that there is a spending “hole created by the debt overhang” that has to be filled, or else: this is merely a theoretical/political construct. That’s all. It is not necessarily true; it doesn’t necessarily comport with reality.

And: “If one group of people — those with excessive debts — is forced to cut spending to pay down its debts, one of two things must happen: either someone else must spend more, or world income will fall.”

That follows only if the fallacy upon which the Krugman fatuity is premised is true. And it isn’t. His assertions most certainly don’t exhaust the possibilities. Less spending could also mean more saving. More saving would translate into investment and, eventually, production—these are the wellspring of prosperity.

UPDATED: Economic Indices Ignore ‘Century of the State’

Economy, Free Markets, Individual Rights, Liberty, The State, The West

Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Canada and Chile have leapfrogged over the United States on the Fraser Institute’s index of economic freedom.

“In this year’s index, Hong Kong retains the highest rating for economic freedom, 9.05 out of 10. The other top 10 nations are: Singapore (8.70), New Zealand (8.27), Switzerland (8.08), Chile (8.03), United
States (7.96), Canada (7.95), Australia (7.90), Mauritius (7.82), and the United Kingdom (7.81).”

Forty-two data points are used to construct a summary index and to measure the degree of economic freedom in five broad areas:
1 Size of Government: Expenditures, Taxes, and Enterprises;
2 Legal Structure and Security of Property Rights;
3 Access to Sound Money;
4 Freedom to Trade Internationally;
5 Regulation of Credit, Labor, and Business.

With some variation, The Heritage/WSJ’s economically freest countries are these:

1- Hong Kong
2- Singapore
3- Australia
4- New Zealand
5- Ireland
6- Switzerland
7- Canada
8- United States
9- Denmark
10- Chile

Lest you forget, these indices provide important but woefully incomplete data. Long ago, Pierre Lemieux, a libertarian Canadian economist (a friend too) explained:

“If ‘economic freedom’ is inseparable from the rest of human liberty in a social context (using one’s property to express dissenting opinions, travel, have sex, grow marijuana, store one’s firearms, raise funds from “public” investors, etc.), the freedom indexes are off the mark.

“This explains why some countries ruled by hard tyrannies (as opposed to the soft, Tocquevillian brand we know in the West), where nobody in his right mind would want live except to make a buck as a privileged foreigner or a member the local nomenklatura, make it to the top of the list. Who would want to live in Hong Kong (ranked 1st of 151 countries in the HF/WSJ index), that is, under one of the worst tyrannies on earth, and so much so for its very efficiency? Who would want to be a peasant under other Asian tyrannies like Singapore (ranked 2nd)?”

“The selective definition of economic freedom also explains why the indexes show growing economic freedom while everybody who lives in the real world must know that the 20th century, rightly described by Mussolini as ‘the century of the state,’ is continuing in the 21st with a vengeance. During the 12 years of the HF/WSJ index, economic freedom is supposed to have increased. For example, over that period, both the U.S. (now ranked 9th) and Canada (ranked 12th) have improved their scores by 11%, while in both countries (and others) the Surveillance State was growing uncontrollably, including on financial markets. In the U.S., so many business executives are going to jail that perhaps repression will have to be outsourced to China.”

“Thus, the ‘economic freedom’ that is being measured is a rather special animal: it is the freedom to do what is narrowly defined as freedom in the statistics underlying the index. In practice, the freedom indexes encompass some general conditions for economic freedom (like a stable currency, or narrowly defined ‘property rights’), specific government restrictions or controls (on foreign investment, for example), and consequences of state intervention (the informal economy or corruption). And, of course, the weights assigned to the components of the indexes are arbitrary.”

“I am not saying that such indexes are totally useless. They do regroup variables that are correlated with GDP per capita and its growth, but keep in mind that GDP is a very unreliable construct that reveals basically nothing about the general welfare, and is based on arbitrary value judgments (this is pretty standard welfare economics: see my upcoming article in The Independent Review). The indexes may correlate with the difficulties the businessman will have with local bureaucracies. They may even indicate opportunities for investors to make money in limited contexts, assuming the information has not already been incorporated in prices. The HF/WSJ publication even contains some useful country summaries and international statistics.”

“But the freedom indexes have little to do with ‘economic freedom’ as we use the term in politics, economics and philosophy.”

UPDATE (Oct. 17): Interestingly, John Stossel has addressed Myron’s question:

“This evening on Eric Bolling’s show, Follow the Money, when I argued that economic freedom brings prosperity, lefty lawyer Ron Kuby said I was ‘full of it’ because the freest countries are not at the top of a list of the world’s richest countries:

1- Monaco
2- Liechtenstein
3- Norway
4- Luxembourg
5- Channel Islands
6- Qatar
7- Bermuda

But this is deceptive nonsense, like so much of what lefty lawyers say. It’s no surprise that small oil-rich nations, tax havens, and countries with old wealth have the highest per capita income. But the freest counties are all near the top of the list. Here’s Heritage’s list of the least economically free countries:

172- Democratic Republic of Congo
173- Libya
174- Venezuela
175- Burma
176- Eritrea
177- Cuba
178- Zimbabwe
179- North Korea

Do you want to live in any of those counties? I sure don’t.”

QE2: That Ship Has Sailed

Debt, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank, Inflation, The State

I’m not talking about “The Queen Elizabeth 2” cruise ship, but of “‘Quantitative Easing,’ which is state-speak for the government’s monkeying with the money supply.” That ship has indeed sailed a long time ago. At the end of September, we reported here on a $1 trillion Fed infusion of paper into our hot-air balloon of an economy.

How many pinpricks away from runaway hyperinflation are we?

Now you know why a stock market rally does not a recovery predict. In fact, stocks will be buoyed after a funny-money injection. “But as usual,” concedes Larry Kudlow, ignored are “the plunging dollar and soaring commodity prices, which will lead to an inflation tax on consumers and businesses, something that is not good for profits or economic growth.”

UPDATE II: “Financial” Paperwork Crisis (No Conspiracy Thinking, Please)

Business, Conspiracy, Debt, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank, Reason, Socialism

As I read the facts, the latest foreclosure crisis is bureaucratic in nature, not economic. Described by The Wall Street Journal, “the wrong guy at the bank signed the foreclosure paperwork. … The affidavit was supposed to be signed by the nameless, faceless employee in the back office who reviewed the file, not the other nameless, faceless employee who sits in the front.”

The reality has not changed. We’re still talking about the same “consumer who borrow[ed] money to buy a house, [didn’t] make the mortgage payments, and then [lost] the house in foreclosure.”

Except that now 100,000 people get to keep homes for which they haven’t paid. Because bureaucracy runs the economy, the process of cleansing the housing market of these toxic acquisitions will be halted and gummed up even more so than before.

A major culprit is “GMAC Mortgage, whose parent Ally Financial is majority-owned by the U.S. government.”

Well, of course.

Every parasitical official seeking to renew or secure his sinecure on the public teat is demanding a halt to what looks to have been perfectly legitimate foreclosures on delinquent homeowners: state attorneys general, the Attorney General (Eric Holder), and assorted politicians, all interfering in local state affairs.

As the WSJ notes (rather meekly), “freezing activity in a $2.8 trillion financial market is the last thing this economy needs and is in no way proportional to the problems reported so far.”

The WSJ concludes on a stronger note:

“If evidence emerges of policies or actions that wrongly threw people out of their homes, by all means investigate and prosecute violations of law. But allowing people to live in homes without paying for them is not cost-free. That cost will be borne directly by investors in mortgage-backed securities and mortgage servicing companies, and ultimately by American taxpayers, who now stand behind 90% of new mortgages, thanks to guarantees by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration.

The bigger damage here is to the housing market, which desperately needs to find a bottom by clearing excess inventory and working through foreclosures as rapidly as possible. The moratoriums further politicize the housing market and further delay a housing recovery. In an economy and a financial system engulfed in Washington-created uncertainty, the political class has decided to create still more.”

Justice in the food-stamps nation …

UPDATE I (Oct. 11): It is clear that the above constitute “technicalities, not miscarriages of justice.” In “A Foreclosure Tightrope for Democrats,” the NYT suggests that the “White House shares those concerns, and it has tried to defuse the issue by arguing that problems can be addressed without imposing a moratorium.”

“‘There are, in fact, valid foreclosures that probably should go forward,’ David Axelrod, a senior White House adviser, said Sunday on CBS.”

The industry has argued in response that problems should be addressed without halting all foreclosures, because a moratorium would damage the economy. “It must be recognized that the mortgage market, investors and the health of the economy are all interrelated,” Tim Ryan, president of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, said Monday.

Is the prospect of an election forcing some economic enlightenment at the White House?

UPDATE II (Oct. 12): It must be obvious to readers of this site that I would strongly disagree with the case my colleague Vox Day makes against the strict rule of law and for grand-conspiracy:

The idea that the foreclosure fraud is simply a little clerical error and that homeowners are attempting to capitalize on a minor issue of missing paperwork is a blatant and shameless lie. The mere fact of their focus on the borrowing parties rather than the banks is proof that they are intentionally evading the real issue. Karl Denninger, who has been on this for three years now, explains it more succinctly than anyone. “The issue is not about which paper-pusher signed documents. The issue is whether the origination and securitization of this paper in the first instance was fraudulent, and whether we now we have a Watergate-style coverup of what a gang of brigands did to steal literal trillions of dollars!” As he further elucidates, there are three primary parts to the problem; notice that the latter two have absolutely nothing to do with the borrowers that the Republican Cantor declares must “take responsibility for themselves”. But if a poor Hispanic family living in an overpriced house have to take responsibility for themselves, why don’t the bankers who are holding Cantor’s leash have to do likewise?

Similar opinions were expressed on BAB when we discussed “Strategic Defaulters.” There, John Danforth wrote:

What caused the drop in nominal property value? The inevitable collapse of prices that were superheated by banks puffing up fractional reserves with derivatives of the superheated asset prices. …No matter how debased the morality of the strategic defaulters, the banks are not any better.

Distilled, the argument for all-out sweetness and love for the foreclosed upon is that, because the banks are embroiled in the fractional reserve system, they should suffer the worst of fates.

That’s like saying that because the legal system is generally corrupt, murderers should go free; or because an owner who sells a parcel of land partakes in the property tax theft, the buyer should not have to pay him. Or because businesses often act like exuberant idiots during a phase of the business cycle—some as offenders; others as victims—their customers need not pay them. And on and on.

This is chaos theory; create chaos, and out of it, something good may come. And never mind that not all bankers are crooks; that not all of them understand the theoretical aspects of the system in which they are embroiled; and that not nearly enough bad things are said about the defaulters.

As to Vox’s point, it does not follow from “the mere fact of their focus on the borrowing parties rather than the banks,” that this “is proof that they are intentionally evading the real issue.”

Not in logic, at least.

Finally, the laws of economics are natural laws. Whoever is involved, it is categorically good that responsible buyers get to pick up foreclosed properties, and that the mortgage miasma is cleared and cleansed away.