The tragedy of modern macroeconomics

The cross-post from Richard Holden begins as follows:

Economists did not predict the financial crisis of 2007, nor did we predict that advent of secular stagnation that has followed. Those events have shaken the economic and political world. Our theories need work. Maybe a lot of work.

Recessions are naturally occurring phenomena which always come as a surprise, but on the second half of his statement, let me take you back to what I published in Quadrant in February 2009 and which I had written the previous December.

Just as the causes of this downturn cannot be charted through a Keynesian demand-deficiency model, neither can the solution. The world’s economies are not suffering from a lack of demand, and the right policy response is not a demand stimulus. Increased public sector spending will only add to the market confusions that already exist.

What is potentially catastrophic would be to try to spend our way to recovery. The recession that will follow will be deep, prolonged and potentially take years to overcome.

This has been exactly what has followed the stimulus and it should not be a surprise although among economists it is. And this is not “secular stagnation”. This is the full-on consequence of following a Keynesian approach to recovery. Just because economists no longer understand the crucial importance of value-adding activity doesn’t mean it has stopped being essential to recovery. It has only meant that modern economists have no idea what is going on.

The rest of Holden’s post tries to get at the point via a critique of modern monetary policy – of which there is no greater critic than I am – that Say’s Law makes straightforward. He crosses correctly over to the real side of the economy to show that you can pour out all the money you like, but if there is no real value-adding activity to support it, you cannot make a recovery happen.

The problem with modern monetary theory is that, in short, there is only a finite amount of real economic resources that can be extracted through seigniorage (the difference between the face value of physical money and its production costs). Or, to quote the late, great Zvi Griliches: “one can only get so much lemon juice out of a lemon.”

It is understanding the overlap between the monetary side of the economy and the real side that is without doubt among the major issues in getting many of these things right. This is covered in Chapters 16 and 17 of the second edition of my Free Market Economics, which I began to write at the end of 2008 to explain why a Keynesian stimulus can never work. It is Say’s Law – uniquely discussed in this book and found nowhere else in all of modern economic literature! – that explains how these things work. Every economist understood this before 1936. Now almost no one does. This is the tragedy of modern macroeconomic theory which only makes things worse every time it is applied.

Almost gone

uninstalling-obama

Listening to Obama’s last press conference. Such a windbag! Future generations are going to wonder where his reputation for being a great speaker came from. One platitude after another. If you didn’t know his record, if you didn’t know what he has actually done over the past eight years, you might even conclude he’d be an all right president. But we do know what he’s done. Cannot wait to see him gone.

FOLLOWED BY: Been watching on the BBC. The very next show is about Donald Trump who apparently thinks of himself as some kind of comic book character – Batman or Superman or something. Anyway, it’s about Trump, Putin and the “secret dossier”. Is it fact or fiction or some of both, they ask. We still don’t know. The entire story is right now, even while I’m watching, being treated as something we still need to wait on further evidence. We have even been shown a supposed tape of some businessman being taped in bed with some woman, presumably not his wife. And now they are interviewing some “Russian gangster” about this association with Trump in Moscow. Now the interviewer is in Washington looking more deeply at the evidence. And on it goes, but enough for me. What a contrast between the two stories! What a world we are about to enter. Do they know they are lying? No doubt, but they could not care less.

Standard errors of sub-standard theory

Apparently, Trump has almost entirely overlooked economists for any of the major posts which has led to this article: Economists Contemplate Life on the Outs. The President-Elect does not seem to value economists very highly, which the following reaction might help you understand why.

“Donald Trump doesn’t matter,” Yale’s Robert Shiller, the outgoing president of the American Economic Association and a winner of the 2013 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, said during a discussion of the long-run prospects for the economy. “He’ll only be here for four years and he’s gone.” Shiller later admitted that could be wishful thinking: “I’m a natural optimist, so I don’t want to speculate on how bad things could get.”

But the response that truly made me laugh is this where, to translate, economists are said to be perfectly aware how bad things might go but focus on the most likely outcomes even though improbable seriously bad events often occur instead. Here it is in their own words:

In their academic research, the more [economists] know about something, the more they emphasize their standard errors. The closer you get to the op-ed page or policy advising, the standard errors shrink down to nothing. You look at the predictions that economists made about what would happen with Brexit, what would happen with the election of Trump, what would happen with the downgrade of U.S. debt, etc., and a lot of those were appallingly wrong. I think we need to do a better job conveying some of our uncertainty, some of the standard errors around what we do.

The real story is that they don’t have a clue since they have been following standard macro with its emphasis on aggregate demand for eighty years. Shunting these people to the side is one more example of Trump’s good judgment. If he really does cut spending and cut regulations and only spends public money on what genuinely adds value, he will be doing pretty well most of what needs to be done. But having said that, I do note that the adjustment process may – may – lead through a relatively steep valley before things finally begin to improve. And now that I have covered all possibilities, we can sit back and see what actually happens.

Are the media really this clueless?

If the insight of the media into all things is as penetrating as their insight into Trump’s attitude to the traditional media, these people are as stupid a bunch as I have ever seen. This is from The New York Times even: Trump Team Considers Moving Press Corps, Alarming Reporters. He is not thinking of excluding these left-wing clowns, but increasing the competition.

Sean Spicer, the incoming White House press secretary, issued a statement on Sunday that did not address the issue of a dedicated work space. “While no decisions have been made, there is enormous interest in covering Donald Trump,” he wrote. “The current briefing room only has 49 seats, so we have looked at rooms within the White House to conduct briefings that have additional capacity.”

Do they really think they are the soul of objectivity, that there is no other perspective on events other than their own? Do they really think that Trump feels he can trust them to report accurately and without bias? I only go to the traditional media to find out what the left thinks about policy and events, and thus to find out the sensation de jour. I go to everyone else to find out what is actually going on and for a proper perspective on policy. It is to everyone else that Trump intends to provide room for them to report.

Donald Trump is the Tom Brady of politics

It’s five in the morning where I am, but am up and watching the Patriots v the Texans. I do indeed like Boston which is why I am preparing for a wrecked day tomorrow, even though we are in Copenhagen just for the weekend. But it’s the Boston QB that I like to watch, and this is not even remotely because he is one of the few people in sport to say a good word about the president-elect.

In fact, it is very hard to find a good word said about him anywhere. But among those who do, it turns out, is Tony Abbott who has put out a statement on RESPONDING TO THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY that was published in The Oz. I have no idea whether this is much noted back home, but it does seem a useful addition to the debate. The great fear on the left is not that Trump will fail but that he will succeed. At least here there is recognition on how he might and what we might learn from Trump’s approach:

In just a few days Donald Trump will become President of the United States and leader of the free world. It’s high time for people everywhere to stop lamenting the rise of Trump and to start responding to it. If he does what he has said he would – and we have to assume he’ll try – economic policy here in Australia will need to respond fast. It will be a good opportunity for the government not just to talk about agility but actually to be agile.

There is as much to worry about what Trump does on the economy as there is to hope. But if he does succeed, and he really might, he will re-write the policy agenda for a generation to come.

Might mention that with five minutes to go in the game, Boston has not just an impossible lead, but is beating the spread. I can only hope Trump does as well.

How do you prevail against this?

img_2242

The Deep State – what I have called the progressive internationalists – are doing all they can to hobble and destroy Trump even before he enters the White House. This article on The Deep State Strikes Back: The Permanent Campaign Against Donald Trump gets right to the heart of the issue.

Getting most of what I know from the net, and being used to the relatively balanced Australian press, the above front page has been quite a revelation. It is not just that the story is discussed, but driven towards the reader. It is from The Daily Mail as well, which is towards the right of the spectrum and yet, there you are. If you are just someone who takes the news, and the balance of what matters and what does not from the paper you go to if you want to know the football scores, you cannot but be affected. The “sex scandal” is assumed to be true, it is presented as having come from a reputable source that being an “Ex-MI6 officer”, and it is something that must inevitably tend to diminish Trump’s credibility since whatever you might think of the story, you know it is now part of the mythology.

The process is depraved. But when I think that half of Americans are sorry to see Obama leave, it is hard to see Trump prevailing into the long-term. He is of a different cut, he is personally disgusted by the values his enemies display, and he has been warned that these enemies exist, which are all positive. But we will have four years of relentless negativity about Trump, some of which will stick and some of which will not, but all of it will take its toll.

Then there was The New York Times this morning (although yesterday’s paper). Not as sensationalist as The Daily Mail but even more one dimensional. The story on the front page is titled “Blackmail in Russia didn’t die with Soviets” and comes with the sub-head “Kremlin has long history of using compromising material to discredit foes”. I suppose that’s true, but the presumption throughout the paper is that there is something to the story even though there is nothing in it other than some insane fantasy. So we continue inside with “From salacious dossier to political crisis””, “President-elect concedes Russia’s interference in American election”, “A Manchurian candidate” (with the highlight quote “The onus is on the president-elect to prove he’s not Putin’s puppet”) and “Trump takes aim at news media”. There is also “Ode to Obama” with its highlight quote, “You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone”. Truly only a Donald Trump has any chance to maintain his balance in such an environment, but it will be very hard going on the evidence I have just seen.

Millennial incomes are much lower

They voted for him and love him still, but this is the reality Obama has wrought: American millennials paid 20% lower salaries than baby boomers at same age, report reveals:

Americans ages 25 to 34 make 20% less money than baby boomers did at the same age, according to a study released Friday.

Millennials were found to be making about $40,581 in 2013. By comparison, young people in the same age group brought in $50,910 in 1989, according to a new analysis of Federal Reserve data by the advocacy group Young Invincibles. . . .

The report’s other findings were just as grim. When baby boomers were young, they owned more homes and had amassed assets worth twice as much as young people of today. . . .

In all, the figures present a dire picture for the 75 million millennials struggling for their piece of the American Dream.

“These findings uncover that millennials have been set back significantly, by not just the Great Recession but by decades-long financial trends, resulting in major generational declines in financial security between millennials and baby boomers when they were the same age,” said Tom Allison, deputy director of policy and research for Young Invincibles.

Most older people have a stock of assets they accumulated under a different more productive economic system which obscure the underlying economic trends. It is those starting out in life who are at the hard edge of reality. The West is poorer, and if you would like my one-line explanation of why that it, it is because governments are relentlessly dissipating our wealth on non-productive forms of expenditure, which naturally includes all of the massive welfare expenditures that bring votes but no economic growth.

The only part hard to believe is that it is not the universal view

Mark Levin discussing Obama’s absence of any positive accomplishments.

“Barack Obama will go down in history as the first African-American president, and he has no accomplishments.

“In fact, he’s got one destructive policy after another, one outrageous speech after another.

“He leaves increased unemployment, true unemployment, not the government’s propaganda.

“He leaves increased racial tension of the sort I’ve never seen in my life.

“He leaves a country economically on its back.

“He leaves our enemies abroad stronger than they could possibly have imagined.

“He’s eviscerated law enforcement; he’s eviscerated our health care system; he’s eviscerated our courts – having appointed 40 percent of the judges.

“He’s eviscerated the school lunch program; he’s eviscerated NASA; he’s eviscerated the Justice Department, which now is a left-wing hack political operation.

“He’s eviscerated the Environmental Protection Agency, which isn’t about the environment at all. It’s about destroying our industries.

“He’s eviscerated our immigration system and our border; he’s eviscerated our intelligence community in many respects.

“He’s eviscerated our trust by our allies – including the state of Israel.

“Obama has been a one-man wrecking ball. That’s what I’ve called him for eight years, and I’m actually wrong.

“There’s a lot of wrecking balls in this, including the Democrat Party, the media, academia and these clowns in Hollywood.

“Oh, and yes, he’s done enormous damage to our constitutional system, and you really do have to wonder if it can be repaired based on what you hear today from both parties.”

He doesn’t know it but he’s discussing Say’s Law

This is Captain Capitalism we are talking about, in a quite nice post on Debunking the Multiplier Effect. To me it is essential to take his criticism of Keynesian theory back to Say’s Law since otherwise there is no reference point to hold onto when trying to explain what’s wrong with modern macro. This is his final para:

The truth is economic growth is caused by hard work, innovation, creativity, self-supportation, and increased efficiency. It’s nothing new or mysterious as human kind has, through trial and error (and not faux “studies” done by idiots in the economic departments of academia or Washington) figured this out over the millennia. And the fact something as stupid as “the multiplier” effect can not only be swallowed, but be so prominent among economist and professional circles, is more a testament to the human mind’s amazing ability to lie to itself than any kind of epiphany or “discovery” by the “profession” of economics. It is here I simply ask Americans and westerners to do something they pride themselves off of. Be TRULY independent minded people with genuine critical thinking skills. Wake the F up, use your brain, think things through and realize just what a bunch of frauds, posers, and charlatans most economists and politicians are.

Economists can’t do macro any more because they can’t do micro, but that’s another story. Only an increase in the supply of products whose production costs are covered by their sales revenue will push an economy along. That is not 100% right, but it is close enough so as not to matter if you want to see what governments are doing wrong.