Econ 101

Paul Krugman:

[T]he [Obama administration's] new [infrastructure] initiative is a chance for me to air one of my pet peeves: the stupidity of the claim, which you hear all the time — and you’ll hear again now — that it’s always better to provide stimulus in the form of tax cuts, because individuals know better than the government what to do with their money.

Why is this claim stupid? Because Econ 101 tells us that there are some things the government must provide, namely public goods whose benefits can’t be internalized by the market.

So suppose we’re going to put $50 billion of resources that would otherwise be idle to work. Is it better to use them to produce public goods like improved roads, or private goods like more consumer durables? That’s not at all obvious — and anyone who tells you that basic economics settles the question, that is says that devoting more resources to production of private goods is better, doesn’t understand Econ 101.

And there’s a pretty good argument to be made that we are, in fact, starved for public goods in this country, so that it would actually be a good idea to shift some resources to public goods production even if we were at full employment; in that case, we should definitely give priority to public goods when trying to put unemployed resources to work.

Yes.

Also see Ryan Avent and Mark Thoma.

He's right and he's right? They can't both be right!

Ryan Avent, perhaps prodded by my comment-thread heckling (yeah...in my dreams!), has started making a lot more sense in his arguments against the industrial-policy-ists:

And over the long-term, the needs in America are the same as they have been for decades. The country has been underinvesting in the basics, and the effects have become ever clearer. Its infrastructure—from transportation to water and power to broadband—is wholly inadequate. Educational attainment is plateauing and may begin to decline. Its labour market policies aren't up to handling sectoral shifts or millions of people in long-term unemployment. Its research funding is ample for any project with a potential military application and meagre for everything else. The weaknesses are clear.

This is absolutely right. The collapse of America's pubic-good provision is the single biggest problem with our economy. Trade issues, and industrial policy, are secondary to our crumbling infrastructure and dysfunctional education system.

And yet, when Tim Duy says things like this, it's hard to ignore the sneaking suspicion that maybe trade-imbalance and industrial-policy issues are a bigger part of the picture than we realize:

[I]n aggregate real wages and nonfarm payrolls have been stagnant for a decade. Where are these high wage paying jobs? Or even median wage paying jobs at this point? Silly me, I actually believe the unapologetic and unquestioning supporters of free trade need to answer this question. We are millions of jobs below trend, and we have lost millions of jobs in manufacturing - the manufacturing of goods that we still consume, no less. Moreover, these two trends occurred in the same decade, in concert with a third trend - the sharp rise in foreign official reserve accumulation. How can you not be even allowed to suggest that there just might be a connection?

The problem I see with Avent and his fellow-travelers (Yglesias) is not that they are wrong about the structural problems facing our economy - the lack of investment in public goods, the Republican commitment to ever-expanding deficits - but that they are so dogged in their belief that these are the only problems we face. Perhaps they are afraid that they'll labeled as economic know-nothings if they question the free-trade orthodoxy (a legitimate fear, given that most of the Grand Old Men of the economics professions are still ideological conservatives). Or perhaps a trade war with China is what they fear most.

But either way, if Tim Duy's question turns out to have an answer we don't want to hear - an answer that implies that a strong-dollar policy and a finance-favoring industrial policy have hurt our economy - then writers like Avent and Yglesias are preventing liberals from coming up with a workable answer to America's economic woes. Which, in the long run, is bad news for the liberal movement.

Oh yeah? Well I cut spending by 25%! :P

Chris Edwards at the Cato Institute has a blog post called "I cut spending 10%". Here's how he does it:

The savings listed here are rough and rounded 2010 outlay amounts from the president’s budget.

1. Community Development Subsidies. The Department of Housing and Urban Development should not be funding local activities such as street repairs and parking lots. Save $10 billion.

2. Homeowner Subsidies. Federal subsidies for home ownership helped to cause the financial meltdown and recession by putting people into homes they could not afford. Save $10 billion

3. Energy Subsidies. Federal energy subsidies have a long record of waste and boondoggle. Private markets will invest in energy technologies when there is a reasonable chance for a return. Save $20 billion.

4. Higher Education Subsidies. Federal student aid contributes to college tuition inflation, and it can be replaced by private borrowing, family savings, and private charity. Save $20 billion.

5. Overpaid Federal Workers. Federal workers earn an average $120,000 a year in wages and benefits—twice what the average American earns. Federal wages should be cut 10 percent. Save $20 billion.

6. Farm Subsidies. More than 70 percent of aid goes to the largest 10 percent of farm businesses. With an average income 28 percent higher than the U.S. average, farm households don’t need federal welfare. Save $30 billion.

7. Public Housing and Rental Subsidies. Federal housing policies have damaged cities and created concentrations of poverty. They are based on a myth that markets can’t provide low-income housing. Save $35 billion.

8. K-12 Education Subsidies. Rising federal funding of the public schools has not improved test scores. It has only created large bureaucracies and stifled local control and innovation. Save $60 billion.

9. Transportation Subsidies. State governments and the private sector can more efficiently fund highways, airports, rail, urban transit, and air traffic control without federal subsidies and regulations. Save $85 billion.

10. Food Subsidies (Food Stamps and School Lunch). Low-income families often suffer from poor food choices and obesity, not a shortage of calories. Food aid for the needy should be left to private charities. Save $90 billion.

Not bad, Chris, but I'll do you one better. I will cut 25% of the budget. I will do this by eliminating the entire Department of Defense and all spending for the Global War on Terror.

But wait! you say. We need an army, a navy, an air force, etc. to guard our liberty! Oh no, sir. Private individuals can easily provide security, by pooling their money to hire companies like Blackwater to carry out anti-terrorism missions around the globe. And security at home can be provided by private security companies and by the militias mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. There is absolutely no need for a government-funded military. Cut this waste out of the budget.

Now, of course, I'm kidding, and everyone immediately and instinctively knows why: defense is a public good, something that will not be provided by private individuals in efficient quantities. That is why it cannot be privatized (though I must say, that doesn't stop Blackwater and its GOP backers from trying!).

But if you look at Chris Edwards' list of proposed cuts, you will find that much of it comes from other public goods, specifically infrastructure, research, and education. These are things that will not be provided in sufficient quantity by the private sector, as both economic theory and centuries of history clearly demonstrate. Edwards only manages to look like he's cutting waste because large numbers of his Republican readers have been fooled into thinking that infrastructure and education are not public goods (on the issue of roads, Edwards recognizes the problem and attempts to weasel out of it by claiming that states will provide roads more efficiently, something that is obviously untrue for interstate roads, and which in any case is just shifting most of the highway tax burden from federal to state taxes).

Even things like food stamps and housing subsidies contain elements of public good-ness. Without this life support, many people would be thrown into absolute poverty. The result? Riots and crime, which hurt everyone. Libertarians don't like to admit this, but food stamps and housing subsidies are the price we pay for the right to bear arms, since absolute-poor people with guns are wont to go on rampages.

The point here is that refusing to recognize the existence of public goods (or, technically, nonrival goods in general) does not equal fiscal austerity. Conservatives have managed to get away with this hackery too long, and it is time to start calling them on this. Econ 101 must triumph over whatever class the Cato people are taking - Econ 0, let's call it.

(PS - It's worth mentioning that I do agree with some of these cuts. #2 I definitely agree with; biasing people away from renting is bad. #5 has some merit, but the specifics are what's important. #6 is absolutely right. So it's not the case that 100% of Edwards' ideas come from ignoring the existence of public goods...just 80 or 90% of them.)

Reagan's true legacy

If any publication was the official pamphlet of the Reagan Revolution back in the 1980s and before, that publication would have to be The National Review. So it's pretty epic that The National Review recently printed a four-page article lambasting the Reagan economic approach and smashing the conventional wisdom that it was good for our country. Williamson writes:

There are two schools of thought about the Reagan tax cuts. The conventional conservative view: They spurred investment, entrepreneurship, and real economic growth, helping to resuscitate the post-Carter economy, and, by doing so, they paid for themselves. The conventional liberal view: They were an ill-considered product of starve-the-beast ideology and produced crippling deficits, inaugurating a new era of fiscal irresponsibility only briefly transcended during the golden years of the Clinton presidency.

Here’s a different take: They never happened.

Properly understood, there were no Reagan tax cuts. In 1980 federal spending was $590 billion and in 1989 it was $1.14 trillion...Looked at from the proper perspective, we haven’t really had any tax cuts to speak of — we’ve had tax deferrals.

This is the concept of "Ricardian Equivalence" (actually invented in its modern form not by David Ricardo, but by Robert Barro). The idea is that cutting taxes without cutting spending makes it necessary to raise taxes (or default on your debt or produce inflation) in the future; and since people, being rational, realize this, they act as if the tax cuts never happened.

Now, I don't believe the theory of Ricardian Equivalence is quite correct. But conservatives do! They use it as the main reason why stimulus spending won't boost the economy. But if stimulus doesn't work, the Reagan tax cuts didn't work either.

Williamson goes on to say that the political success of Reagan's tax cuts caused the Republicans to lose any sense of fiscal responsibility...that the seeds of 2001 were sown in 1981:

Bush and the concurrent Republican majorities in both houses of Congress didn’t manage to cut spending, either. Part of that was circumstances — 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, the subprime meltdown — but part of it was the fact that a poorly applied supply-side analysis has infantilized Republicans when it comes to the budget. They love to cut taxes but cannot bring themselves to cut spending: It’s eat dessert first and leave the spinach on the table.

A good point. But in my opinion, the collapse of Republican fiscal responsibility is merely the latest instance of a problem that democracies always face sooner or later: everyone wants government services but no one wants to foot the bill, so they make the kids foot the bill. Williamson concurs:

There is some evidence that [fiscal irresponsibility] is both bad politics and bad policy...the deficit is now truly terrifying, and, fortunately for Republicans, it is owned by Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi.

So, in order to keep the deficit-fueled electoral gravy train running, the Grand Old Party o' Deficits keeps blaring the lie that tax cuts pay for themselves:

Despite all those pro-growth tax cuts, our deficits continue to grow faster than our economy...even during periods of strong economic growth, there has been nothing to indicate that our economy is going to grow so fast that it will surmount our deficits and debt without serious spending restraint. This should be a shrieking klaxon of alarm for conservatives still falling for happy talk about pro-growth tax cuts and strategic Laffer Curve optimizing.

Some people are more sensible about that Laffer Curve talk. Laffer, for instance. Arthur Laffer, whose famous (and possibly apocryphal) back-of-the-napkin diagram launched supply-side tax policy, readily concedes that the growth effects of tax cuts are oversold in the political debate. “Does every tax cut pay for itself? No."...

[The idea that tax cuts pay for themselves is] a just-so story, a bedtime fairy tale Republicans tell themselves to shake off fear of the deficit bogeyman. It’s whistling past the fiscal graveyard.

The exaggeration of supply-side effects — the belief that tax-rate cuts pay for themselves or more than pay for themselves over some measurable period — is more an article of faith than an economic fact. But it’s a widespread faith: George W. Bush argued that tax cuts would serve to increase tax revenues. So did John McCain. Rush Limbaugh talks this way. Even Steve Forbes has stepped into this rhetorical stinker from time to time. Reagan knew better — his Treasury Department predicted significant revenue losses from his tax-rate cuts — but his epigones preach a different gospel.

In summary:

Nobody votes for Scrooge. Tax cuts give Republicans an opportunity to distribute economic benefits through the tax code the way Democrats distribute them through appropriations, and the exaggeration of the supply-side effect gives them an opportunity to pretend like those benefits are cost-free...

So, what should conservatives do [to become responsible and still win elections]? One, abjure magical thinking about tax cuts. Two, develop a rhetoric in which “spending” and “taxes” are synonyms, so a federal budget with $1 trillion in new spending means $1 trillion in new taxes — levies on Americans today or on our children tomorrow, with interest.

If conservatives did this, that would be great. But why should they? The path of infinite deficit spending is somewhat easier and far more rewarding than the kind of return to responsibility that Williamson urges. sure, it'll end up crashing the country, but the country is rich enough that the real crash won't come until after the current generation of Republican politicians is retired or dead.

In any case, what does this say about Reagan's legacy? History shows that in a democracy, balanced budgets need bipartisan consensus; you just can't stick one party with the job of being fiscally responsible and expect it to do that job. Before Reagan we had a bipartisan consensus in favor of fiscal responsibility; each party agreed not to become "Santa Claus" if the other one wouldn't. Reagan broke that pact. He changed the GOP's political strategy to a Santa Claus strategy, and it's proven impossible for the GOP to change back. And so Reagan condemned America to spiraling deficits and eventual sovereign default.

Thanks a lot, Gipper!