Column on The Myth of the Stimulus [always proof again]

That Myth of the Stimulus

Tibor R. Machan

Don’t get me wrong–it is possible, though not very likely, that some of
the huge sums the government plans to steer toward the market place will
actually help generate creative, productive employment and, thereby,
revive some measure of economic growth. But it isn’t very likely because
of politics.

If you look at the details of the stimulus package–some $800 billion
borrowed against future taxes no one knows will be forthcoming and from
foreign countries that need to be paid back at some point–a great deal of
it amounts to pork, funds directed toward projects that put money into the
pockets of the voters in the districts of the politicians who are shaping
the stimulus and who feel the need to satisfy those who voted and are
expected to vote for them.

This is where the theories of the famous early 20th century economist
John Maynard Keynes go astray–he believed that when the economy is
faltering it requires substantial and maybe even massive government
spending to revive it. Which gave the idea of such spending a boost.
President Nixon said once, "We are all Keynesians now!"

But Keynes did not specify in detail how the money is to be infused into
the economy–mostly he believed that doing it through funding public works
will do the trick. But his current followers are changing Keynes’
recommendations. They want the government funds to be given specific
direction and believe, moreover, that the folks in Washington, D.C., are
able and willing to figure out where such funds will do the most good, how
the funds will have what economists of this school of thought call the
multiplier effect. This is the supposed phenomenon of getting blood out of
a turnip–or repeatedly increasing the investment the government makes by
its being reinvested over and over again, never mind that those receiving
the money doing the investment have no initiative, no entrepreneurial
motivation, to create or produce anything, only to spend the funds. I get
funds from Uncle Sam and spend it on a car and the dealer then takes that
money and buys furniture for himself and then the furniture store owner
and workers spend what they have made from this to improve the shop and
support their families, and so on and so forth–as if the money remained
the same all through the chain and as if this alone served to actually
increase, not only circulate, wealth.

Also, the money does not remain the same amount–at each step some of it
becomes a sunk cost, a lost amount consumed by those involved in the
transactions. Yes, some of the consumption does generate some income for
yet others but not all. If one buys food, for instance, the store and the
farmer do gain an income but some of that goes to goods and services that
cannot be recovered. The bread and butter or apple I eat are gone,
although I will use some of it to supply me with the energy needed to go
to work tomorrow. And some people may actually use some funds for a
creative purposes, to invent some new, labor saving gadget. But by no
means all of it because the funds were not theirs and they didn’t think up
anything creative, like a new investment, to use the money "to stimulate"

But this isn’t really the worst of it–if it were only this, then the
benefits might be greater then the costs. But because these projects the
government picks aren’t usually what you and I and the rest of the
consuming public would have picked, the "investment" is not actually
productive. It’s sham, like the art works that were produced with the
funds the government spent on artists, back under the New Deal. Very
little of those works were wanted by anyone. Hardly any fetched a price so
the artists could then spend it on further creative works.

The most important thing the Keynesians overlook is that despite the
propaganda about how the government’s support will go to truly productive
undertakings, a great deal of those funds support unproductive adventures,
those referred to as earmarks the politicians include in the bills that
provide the funds. Of course that is what politicians will do since their
reelection depends on it and also, frankly, they are pretty much devoted
to helping those who voted for them, never mind whether that help will
enhance economic growth.

This is one of the findings of public choice theorists, findings that old
and new Keynesians ignore. (In a recent very long essay praising Keynes to
high heaven in The New Republic not a word addressed public choice theory,
even though it is a direct challenge of Keynes’ policy recommendations for
which the architect of the theory, Professor James Buchanan, received the
Nobel Prize in economics.)

Bottom line is that government ought to get out of the business of
investing in various ventures and leave that to citizens, with no special
support for any kind of project in any area of the economy. Like referees
at a game, government isn’t there to get into the game! The players are
far better at figuring out what to do on their own initiative.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s