Brilliant Refutation of Moronic Economic Thinking

Why Printing Money Makes Sense

Right now, even a counterfeiter issuing dud dollars would be better for the economy than our deficit-fixated policymakers

By Dean Baker

October 13, 2010 "The Guardian" — Beneficent Counterfeiters and Economic Stimulus

President Reagan once famously quipped that everyone who is supports abortion has already been born. In the same vein, it is worth noting that all the policymakers who don’t think we should worry about 9.6% unemployment have jobs.

This simple fact cannot be repeated enough times because it explains a huge amount about current economic policy. For the tens of millions of people who are unemployed, underemployed or have given up looking for work altogether, we are in a crisis. The economy is an absolute disaster, ruining their lives and also jeopardising the futures of their children and grandchildren.

But that is not the way that the people paid to contemplate economic policy in Washington see things. This gang is busy congratulating themselves because things could have been worse. They point out that if they had been even more incompetent that we could be in a second Great Depression with unemployment staying in the double digits for a decade.

Instead of worrying about the millions of unemployed workers today, they are worried about their deficit projections for the years 2018, 2020 or even 2025. This crew, which could not even see the $8tn housing bubble that was about to wreck the economy, wants the whole country to genuflect before their projections of deficits for 10-15 years into the future. This situation really would be funny if it did not lead to so much unnecessary suffering.

Obviously, we have to teach some elementary economics to the geniuses who design economic policy. The basic problem we face is a lack of demand. Note that this is the exact opposite of the deficit fixation – budget deficits are a problem when we have too much demand.

To better understand this demand problem, suppose that we had a super-effective counterfeiter: someone who could make near perfect copies of $50 or $100 bills. Suppose this person printed up $2tn of counterfeit money and began to spend it on all sorts of items. Our counterfeiter buys up houses and cars. They pay for incredibly lavish parties and trips. They hire all sorts of servants, groundskeepers and investment advisers.

What would be the effect of this counterfeiting scam on the economy?

In the current situation, it would provide an enormous boost to GDP and create millions of jobs. After all, everyone thinks the money is real. It is no different whether the counterfeiter and his underlings spend $2tn of counterfeit money or if firms suddenly start investing their hoards of cash or households begin to spend again as though the housing bubble had never collapsed.

That may sound troubling, but this is because the current economic situation is so extraordinary. In normal times, the economy is, at least partially, supply-constrained. Collectively, we want more goods and services than the economy is capable of producing. If our counterfeiter manufactured his $2tn in normal times, it likely would cause a serious problem of inflation. There would be more demand for cars, houses and other goods than the economy was able to supply. This would push up prices and wages, leading to a cycle of inflation that would persist until policy measures were taken to slow the economy – or the counterfeiter was caught.

In our demand-constrained economy, however, there is no problem of inflation. The economy can produce more of almost anything right now. The reason that we are not doing it is simply the lack of demand.

But the interesting part of the counterfeiter story is that his $2tn of phony money will not create problems even in the long run, assuming that he is eventually shut down. Suppose that the counterfeiter’s lavish spending gets the economy back towards full employment around 2012, at which point he gets nailed by the FBI who finally figure out how to recognise the dud notes.

At that point, the $2tn will be grabbed out of circulation and destroyed. Assuming that the economy is strong enough at this point to remain near full employment even as this counterfeit wealth disappears, then there would be no lasting damage from the episode. The fictional wealth had generated demand when the economy needed it, but then was pulled out of circulation at the point when it could have generated inflation and “competed away” goods and services from others.

While it is unlikely we will see a successful counterfeiter on this scale, the government and the Federal Reserve Board can imitate the counterfeiter’s actions. This is the story of fiscal stimulus: safe, fun and legal. Instead of putting people to work filling the counterfeiter’s frivolous whims, we could have them work to build up the economy and meet important needs. The list of necessary tasks is long and well-known.

As is the case with the counterfeiter’s illicit stash, the stimulus spending need not even create any long-term debt burden. The Fed could simply buy and hold the bonds issued to finance the spending. When the economy returns to more normal levels of employment, the Fed would raise interest rates, as it always does, to prevent inflation from posing a serious risk.

It’s all very simple. Unfortunately, our Washington politicians lack the courage to take the necessary steps to get the economy back on its feet. That means that the best hope we have right now might be a very successful counterfeiter.

Dean Baker is co-director of the Centre for Economic and Policy Research

So he’s saying politicians in Washington don’t like to spend money? Hahahahaha!

Deficits are at an all time high, and he’s complaining about politicians fixating on deficits?

edit: I considered writing some sort of economic reasoning in Bastiat style, money != goods, that wealth is not how much money you have, but what you can buy with it. Then there’s distortions of the structure of production, creation of unsustainable bubbles, etc. all resulting from his counterfeiting. You guys all know this stuff, but this guy isn’t worth it.

It reminds me of the 4 most expensive words you’ll ever hear from the state: “This time it’s different”.

" money != goods"

unemployment = unitilized capacity = less total REAL WEALTH.

full employment = maximum capacity = maximum total wealth produced.

I think you missed the entire point of the article.

Just admit that what “the market” means to you is the wealthy having their every whim catered to and to hell with anyone else. Admit you’d rather see people starve than offend Bastiat.

Rav, you can debate me on this topic at debate.org if you want to have a real discussion.

Total U.S. Manufacturing capacity = 72.2%.

People need goods, producers need compensation. Facilitating that is the ONLY purpose of money. Right now, there are a lot of people going without things they need, and a lot of producers who could be producing a lot more. The problem is it’s not being facilitated.

Start throwing money out of helicopters on to poor people, (not on to banks) and it would be, in a second.

I’d engage you but you have a bad habit of running away. Seriously, challenge me to a debate on this topic at DDO.

We have unemployment because there exists a suboptimal mix of factors of production.

This suboptimal mix was created by government distortion of price information, and this guy is just advocating further distortion.

How many more condos are needed in Florida?

People need goods, producers need compensation. Facilitating that is the ONLY purpose of money. Right now, there are a lot of people going without things they need, and a lot of producers who could be producing a lot more. The problem is it’s not being facilitated.

Start throwing money out of helicopters on to poor people, (not on to banks) and it would be, in a second. – ravochol

BY this logic, all we need to do is plant more trees and print more money to eliminate scarcity.

throwing money out of helicopters would simply cause inflation since the money is not backed by a corresponding increase in producitivity or production – hence it would be more money chasing the same quantity of goods and services.

In sum, you cant increased societal productivity and productive capacity by simply cutting down trees and printing money.

If you want to increase societal wealth – it must be through increases in labor and capital production, innovation, and productivity. And these are best attained through free markets.

In sum, money has no intrinsic value, it is only a measure of value – when that measure has been devalued and corrupted by inflationary policies designed to create artificial wealth then the money is no longer an accurate representation of productivity, production, labor, or innovation. – it becomes crap or less than the value of the paper it is printed on.

Nice post rettoper.

OK, line by line refutation to the best of my ability:

Liberty student,

I’m still learning.

How many more condos are needed in Florida?

ENOUGH FOR ALL THE HOMELESS PEOPLE

Except, the condos already exist - but “the market” keeps anyone without enough money out of them, and Banks are actually keeping properties OFF THE MARKET to keep PRICES UP.

Because markets don’t automatically solve every problem, and often are even the root cause (like in gladiatorial combat, or in homelessness)

"too cut spending drastically."

On what? Please tell me what, exactly, you would like Washington cut spending on?

If your answer is “the war,” I totally agree, but my guess is you mean “the poor,” and that you have some mumbo-jumbo theory about how food stamps make poor people starve, is that right?

They should just die and decrease the surplus population, right?

Production will not occur if it is not profitable. Right now, the complementary factors of production cannot be arranged in a sufficient number of profitable configurations to accomodate every laborer at the wage he is currently demanding. These mismatches in the complementary factors of production were casued primarily by price distortion resulting from the very same inflationary policies that this author suggests. Unemployed workers can either lower their wage demands to match their marginal productivity in the current suboptimal economic structure, or else hold out for their old wages until the market is able to restore enough balance of factors of productions to bring his labor’s actual marginal productivity back upto it’s old level. Monetary inflation only creates employment by tricking workers into choosing the former by masking real wage cuts, at the cost of further distortion of the price structure and wasting of scarce resources.

Inflation will not reduce unemployment.

There is no slack or subnormal capacity or any other stupid keynesian term. How do you know what’s the real total “capacity” of a system? You dont know. This capacity you are talking about is machines and workers that were used to produce houses and related stuff that is not needed anymore. If you print money people wont start buying houses again, so this resources will remain unused. This is because this resources are not slack or unused capacity, they are malinvestments. Instead, the new money will go in a big part to the already being used “capacity” pushing prices upwards.

Money printing will only help government and banks.

Dean Baker is co-director of the Centre for Economic and Policy Research

He does not know his economic arss from a hole in the ground. The article is nauseating.

We are doomed because people like this hold positions held in high esteem by the public.

Henry Hazlitt wrote Economics in One Lesson in 1946 as an attempt to educate laymen about economics. That was over 60 years ago. Today, Dean Baker tells the public about “basic economics”.

“It’s all very simple”, says Dr. Baker (Ph.D, University of Michigan).

The public does not want to learn about what makes an economy actually work (unhampered markets) and what makes an economy fail (intervention). The public wants to hear the message delivered by Dean Baker.

The Centre for Economic and Policy Research is propaganda machine. Its goal is to educate the public by promoting “democratic debate” on economic matters. No, the goal is to advance interventionism through articles like this one. I notice Joseph Stigliz is on the Advisory Board, so I better not disagree.

Here is what we are to believe: Interventionism is the right path to pursue. The public is merely too stupid to see that. So, we will educate them through democratic debate through the Centre for Economic Policy Research. This way, the public will go to the polls and vote for those who will inflict these policies on the economy.

If the policies don’t have the desired effect, we will simply tell to the public that the policies need to be intensified. If the public balks, maybe not so democratic means can be used. It is for the greater good.

Ravochol,

What are you trying to accomplish by posting this article? Do you agree with the content? Are you looking for refutations like those provided by Rettoper and Smiling Dave? If so, do you have any comments or questions about the refutations provided so far?

You made two replies, one regarding homeless people and empty condos, another regarding what to cut government expenditures on. Neither address the collosal policy errors contained the article, or the refutations already provided.

Are you interested in learning about the market economy or not?