The Tea Party Protests

I am getting a little annoyed that some people have argued that the Tea Party protests were somehow a corporate funded "astroturf" effort, coordinated by the Republican Party, and that policy wonks rebuttal of that perception is defensive and proves them right. Yes, Republicans and old partisan-oriented groups have jumped on board, but they could not do it without genuine outrage, which is evident in the polls, and they did not organize the 750 protests across the country on tax day.

The people have a message: 84% of Americans are against the current government expansion in the longer term. 44% of Americans are against it even in the short term. The protests were coordinated by different groups in each city--some by Ron Paul groups, some by young conservatives, some by coalitions of different groups. This is no different than the anti-war protests by hodgepodge groups, including partisan ones like Move On, and radical ones, and apolitical ones.

Now, here is a round up of great, and disparate, highlights from the protests.

In NY:

“I think Newt Gingrich is – I think he’s a slime ball,” said Roy Delduco, a self-described Constitutionalist with tattoos up his arm and a shaved head. “I don’t like Republicans. I don’t like liberals either. I don’t like the whole bipartisan system. I think it’s part of the problem.”

Delduco said he wants the Federal Reserve disbanded, the IRS “put in jail” and his taxes lowered. He complained about government spending under both Presidents Obama and Bush.

“We’ve basically bankrupted the dollar, and I’m scared,” he said.

...One young man handed out feathers in homage to the Boston Tea Party; another offered stickers in support of John Galt, the hero of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged.”

...Raymond Kwai stood alone in the crowd, holding up a sign that said, in all capital letters, “IF I WANTED TO BE A COMMIE, I’D STAY IN CHINA.”

In San Francisco:

"The government is growing too big," Bernstein said in an interview with CBS News after her speech. "And I grew up in socialism and I've seen it. And this is reminding me more and more of what Poland used to be. I was fortunate to see the transfer from socialism to a free market economy in Poland and i'm very sad to see that the opposite is happening here."

...The San Francisco rally was non-partisan: it attracted Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, and independents, many of whom appeared to be supporters of Texas Rep. Ron Paul's 2008 presidential bid

Overall favorite quote: "You can't put lipstick on socialism."

Here is a roundup. Also, check out the coverage by Pajamas Media.

Back To The Basics

(Cross-posted at Heritage)

In the New York Times today, David Brooks has a column in which he describes two theories about the financial crisis: “greed” and “stupidity.” The “greed” theory is not what you might be thinking—it is not the simplistic notion that Wall Street is just full of greedy capitalists that swindle the people out of their money. It is a little bit more sophisticated than that, because it involves the government bailing out the banks. They do this, of course, because politicians earn handsome rewards for it. This theory has some merit.

The second theory, “stupidity” is also more sophisticated than it sounds. Wall Street did not know that it was engaged in such risky behavior. The theory as presented blames the complex financial instruments, but one could as easily blame monetary policy, subsidies, bailouts, or policy uncertainty, for creating this ignorance.

Government certainly had a hand in creating this crisis, yet now these same leaders are attempting to blame free markets, and resurrect socialism. Right before our eyes we are seeing the pattern: even as government spending backfires, we cede more control to it, and the love and faith in politicians grows. Even free market economists forget the basics.

Now more than ever, we need to return to the fundamentals. We need to relearn our Adam Smith, our Frederic Bastiat, the roots of liberalism and the morality of freedom. Only if the people understand these basic principles do we have a chance. Then we can see through the politicians, and not let them take our freedom and control our lives.

For Keynesians, Too Much Is Never Enough

The New York Times has an article on the “stimulus attempt” in Japan in the 1990s. The article describes two points of view: American economists who think that it partly worked, but did not go far enough, and everyone in Japan, who thinks it was a colossal waste, which they will have to repay for decades, and a waste which turned their economy into one large public works project.

The article also provides some insight into how large a stimulus these American economists think is necessary to get the economy moving. A little bit of math shows that their target size would be even more massive than anything we’re currently debating, and would cripple the economy, not stimulate it.

The article explains:

After years of heavy spending in the first half of the 1990s, economists say, Japan’s leaders grew concerned about growing budget deficits and cut back too soon, snuffing out the recovery in its infancy, much as Roosevelt did to the American economy in 1936. Growth that, by 1996, had reached 3 percent was suffocated by premature spending cuts and tax increases, they say. While spending remained high in the late 1990s, Japan never gave the economy another full-fledged push, these economists say.

They also say that the size of Japan’s apparently successful stimulus in the early 1990s suggests that the United States will need to spend far more than the current $820 billion to get results. Between 1991 and 1995, Japan spent some $2.1 trillion on public works, in an economy roughly half as large as that of the United States, according to the Cabinet Office. “Stimulus worked in Japan when it was tried,” said David Weinstein, a professor of Japanese economics at Columbia University. “Japan’s lesson is that, if anything, the current U.S. stimulus will not be enough.”

If Japan’s economy is half the size of the American economy, then these economists would suggest that we spend at least $4.2 trillion over four years, or more than $1 trillion per year. To not “cripple the stimulus in its infancy,” we’d have to sustain this for significantly longer than just four years. Deficit financed public works costing more than $1 trillion per year, over, let’s say, eight or ten years – this is supposed to stimulate the economy? This would obviously cripple the economy! When spelled out like this, it is hard to imagine any economist seriously suggesting that America should, or could, borrow that kind of money and create that kind of long-term public sector employment.

Instead, it seems that Keynesian economists are simply running out of excuses as to why previous experiments in spending “stimulus” plans have failed to produce good results.

Tried and Failed Policies Resurfacing as Stimulus

(Cross-posted in part at Heritage)

The “cash for clunkers” plan recently proposed in Congress would provide subsidy for a new car purchase to anyone willing to have their current car destroyed. But the economic rationale is eerily similar to the New Deal program most widely agreed to be a catastrophic failure: his agriculture plan that slaughtered pigs. The reasoning goes like this:

Crushing the old car has two benefits. First, it ensures that the consumer's purchase of a more efficient vehicle actually has a net environmental benefit. Second, it prevents a glut of used cars on the market, which would reduce trade-in values for new car buyers, which would cut into the sales incentive effect.

This was the same misguided reasoning that led to the slaughter of six million pigs and plowing under of about half the crop area under cultivation. The head of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration argued that:

People who believe that we ordered the destruction of food are merely the victims of their prejudices and the misinformation that has been fed to them by interested persons. What we actually did was to stop the destruction of foodstuffs by making it worth while for farmers to sell them rather than to destroy them.

In other words, the destruction of crops and livestock would ultimately lead to less waste because prices would be lifted, and so farmers would have more incentive to produce. However, despite vigorous defense by the administration, it is now known that most of the meat went to waste and it was an abysmal failure. Government cannot do a better job than the market in setting prices, and government’s destruction of output will never lead to increased output. It was a failure of economic reasoning – which is now coming back in vogue.

Another failed policy being considered is the mandate to buy American:

The stimulus bill passed by the House last night contains a controversial provision that would mostly bar foreign steel and iron from the infrastructure projects laid out by the $819 billion economic package.

This policy is almost precisely the one put into force during the period of railroad subsidies. According to The Myth of The Robber Barons, transcontinental railroads receiving subsidies had charters that required they only buy American-made steel. But American rails, made with American steel, were of lesser quality than some foreign brands, and this drove their maintenance costs up. This was one of many reasons why subsidized railroads performed extremely poorly compared to private ones.

Yet, here we are again using subsidies that distort incentives, and adding to the problem by passing mandates that will drive up costs and produce inferior products. This new “hope and change” we’re seeing is simply a return to the failed economic reasoning of the New Deal.