Question for Krugman

LOL! This entire letter hinges on the definition of the word "overwhelmingly". Apparently in Mr. Boudreaux's world if I score 58% on a math test I have "overwhelmingly" passed it. Any regular reader of Krugman's columns would know that he largely supports what the House Democrats and the 58 Democrats in the Senate are doing (excepting a few "centrists" perhaps) but 40 Republicans and 2 Independents have more than enough political pull to mutate even the best of intentions. Thus, Congress as a whole is "extremely dysfunctional". Krugman may be optimistic that it can be changed from the inside, but I am more pessimistic and instead throw my lot in with The Economist and the idea of scrapping the Senate altogether and making due with just the House. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinameri...

Krugman's brush off of Barlett by referring to Congress being dysfunctional was startling. Since when can the executive branch constitutionally ignore TARP's text and objective to create a jobs program just because Congress will delay or fail to act? This would certainly be a violation of the separation of powers mandated by the U.S. Constitution. However, I guess this is merely a trivial technicality to Nobel laureates.

Great letter Don. I will be posing similar questions to all of my friends who endorse the central planners!

Thank you. I made a similar comment when a blogger (whose name I can't recall) said we were 'governed by fools' becuase those same fools didn't take in more power when they had the opportunity. I just don't get this mentality.

Krugman is well know for his double mindedness. In Krugman's 1998 Slate article In Praise of Cheap Labor in which Krugman calls for low unrestricted labor. "But matters are not that simple, and the moral lines are not that clear. In fact, let me make a counter-accusation: The lofty moral tone of the opponents of globalization is possible only because they have chosen not to think their position through. While fat-cat capitalists might benefit from globalization, the biggest beneficiaries are, yes, Third World workers."

He goes on to criticize foreign aid (which you could make the same argument for the welfare state) But what is the alternative? Should they be helped with foreign aid? Maybe--although the historical record of regions like southern Italy suggests that such aid has a tendency to promote perpetual dependence.

Krugman speaks with 2 minds when it comes to eliminating poverty internationally he like fellow NY Times co-writter Nicholas Kristof argue that low unrestricted labor is the best way to solve the problem of world poverty but when it comes solving poverty domestically... That is a different matter. Its as if the laws of economics are dependent on geography. There is too much cognitive dissidence for him to support flexible labor laws...

Also the the article Clinging to a steriotype Krugman says that during the 1990's rural areas did quite well and they are not bitter people who cling to their guns and their religion.

It's a tale of two Krugmans.
One the economist. He did good work and wrote at least one good book.

The other is the political activist. That's the one we all know and love. Some people either choose not to see the distinction, to further their own political ends.

I think he identifies with liberal ideologies. He's not necessarily a supporter of the democrats in Congress.

You can't just throw house reps and senators into predetermined groups and expect them to agree on everything just because they are part of the same party. We have 535 members in Congress. That means 535 different views. No matter what party is in there, demo or repub, you will still have 535 different views. They're not drones. They're trustees with with individual state interests that must be catered to.

It's the typical socialist/communist paradox. They love the ideal but damn it they just can never find someone virtuous enough to lead them.

I really really want muirduck as my doctor. No, really!

Well I do see children.

Oh man...talk about throwing one up there for everyone to hit it out of the park.

don't let them know that spending a lot of hours with children makes you be like one of them, especially in your ability to use your brains

They are easier to indoctrinate as kids. All socialist know that, why do you think there was hitlerjungend?

Children are the most brilliant, rapid and objective learners I know.

They have lots of RAM while our brains are turning to cement with ROM only.

Unfortunately many children are inculcated and brainwashed by their parents and modern mass media.

But yeah I definitely try to keep the finer qualities of the mind of a child.

Unfortunately many children are inculcated and brainwashed by their parents and modern mass media.

I'm going to break it down into two parts my friend -

1) brainwashed by parents - what do you mean - in social evolution that you just mentioned who else has the right to brainwash them? How does the little chick learn to find grain, from mother hen, or from the President hen?

2) Brainwashed by the media? You mean by "Mickey", Dora the explorer? and such? They have been a great strength of our side. You will be ostracized in Hollywood if you are not a card carrying communist.

3) I will add a third and the most powerful force of brainwashing - government concentration camps called schools - where kids indoctrinated - where they are made into zombies who follow the orders of their commissars

Love you man!

1) Sure brainwashed by their parent. Think Mormanism. Sure its a parents right but I find it sad.

2) Mass media from sit coms to consumer culture.

3) Public schools are not brainwashing kids unless parents are totally un-involved. Mostly people who make this claim are the Morman types who don't want their children to think critically or different from them.

Love you back bro...

You sure are a bigoted little muirduck aren't you? Just scratch a muirduck and Christian-hate oozes out.

What % of the U.S population is considered mormon? What % goes to public school? I'm sure public schools are purveyors of truth. I'm sure most U.S presidents graduated from Government Run U.S university, look it up, you will be surprised. I'm sure it is because government run schools churn out world leaders at an amazing rate. Check if you see a pattern there.

You are right about sitcoms made by commies in Hollywood. They always consider all their political choices before deciding which democrat to vote for. It's amazing.

Krugman wants a dictatorship.

I've wondered the same thing about others that are part of groups that were harmed by concentrated power in the past. The fact that big portions of the Jewish population tend to be for concentration of power in government has always baffled me, since such concentrations have done great harm to their ancestors.

Sometimes I think people in those situations simply haven't connected the dots. They like idea of trying to achieve their good intentions through government, but they haven't recognized the danger the concentrated government power.

Or maybe they think it'll be different this time.

I also think many people simply haven't given it much thought. I know quite a few with conservative values, but vote differently because they haven't yet figured out who and what represents their values in politics.

Regardless of the propaganda, the power isn't designed to benefit everyone. It is designed to benefit some by exploiting others. It is reasonable for those who benefit to support the power. And it is reasonable for those who are exploited to subvert the power.

I wouldn't waste your time. Today, Krugman compared the Austrians to Lyndon LaRouche's ideologue movement: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/the...

Following in your steps, although less eloquently, I wrote this small letter/comment: http://www.economicthought.net/2009/12/krugman-...

See an illustration of my point immediately below, from Seth. "Krugman wants a dictatorship". Now come on - what is the point of comments like that? And they're not uncommon among Austrians at all.

You're right Daniel. I gave Krugman too much credit. Perhaps he is only ignorant enough to believe that we can increase the power of government and it won't end badly. Saying he wants a dictatorship assumes he can calculate that far ahead.

This is Cafe Hayek, no? Wasn't Hayek's main idea that collectivism tends to lead to tyranny? I believe that's true. I believed that before I heard of Hayek. If you believe that's true, then from your point of view people desiring more government power are either ignorant or calculating for tyranny.
In my view, Krugman is crank. The fact that so many people seem to think he's a smart guy make me think this might be a bizarro world.

RE: "If you believe that's true, then from your point of view people desiring more government power are either ignorant or calculating for tyranny. "

I believe "collectivism" is just a word - some "collectivism" is likely to lead to tyranny. I see no reason for believe that all collectivism would. I'm not even entirely convinced that Hayek believed all collectivism would.

I'm frustrated by your reply here. Yes, "collectivism" is just a word. And I suppose that having an exact context of how it is being used would be helpful to you. But, for someone who claims to want rational debate, it appears that you've just done you best to avoid it and dismiss it.

It's the play dumb strategy.

Well what do you want me to do? I'm not sure what he means by "collectivism" - I'm not even sure he's trying to be faithful to what Hayek meant by "collectivism". One thing I know is that there are some forms of collectivism that don't lead to tyranny - and I said as much. i.e. - I disagree with his point. What else would you have me say? It's avoiding it to disagree?

Daniel - By collectivism, I'll accept the Merriam Webster definition #1 - "a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control"

I may misunderstand Hayek's main thesis. I thought his book "Road to Serfdom" was about this. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't mind if you disagree with me or what I believe to be Hayek's point. If I'm wrong about that, I'd like to know. I'm open to that. But, as LCJ points out below, the words you use are not helpful in advancing the discussion.

Also, I'd point out that I never used the word "all". I could be wrong but "tend towards" doesn't mean the same thing as "all lead to". So, disagreeing with something I never wrote is nice, but not helpful.

I'm not a scholar or an intellectual elite like yourself, and I may not be rational, but please humor me and provide some examples of collectivism that do not tend toward tyranny. I'd appreciate that. You may be right. I can't think of any, but that's why I didn't write "all" because I may not have thought of every form of collectivism.

OK... but that's still a broad definition. That doesn't change my answer. Some collectivism is good and some is bad. My point is I think Hayek would say the same thing - he didn't oppose all forms of collectivism (although he probably opposed more forms than I do). If you wanted to boil "Road to Serfdom" down to a couple words, your post is fine. The fact is, I want government to be powerful in some areas and less powerful in other areas - and in the areas where it is powerful, I want the people to have power over the government. I'm just saying I'm not going to sign onto "collectivism leads to tyranny" when I think some versions of collectivism are perfectly appropriate, and in fact guard against tyranny.

RE: "Also, I'd point out that I never used the word "all". I could be wrong but "tend towards" doesn't mean the same thing as "all lead to". So, disagreeing with something I never wrote is nice, but not helpful."

That's fair enough - well than let me just say "collectivism can lead to tyranny" - that's what I think, rather than "collectivism tends to lead to tyranny".

RE: "I'm not a scholar or an intellectual elite like yourself"

I'm not either. There's no use in scoring rhetorical points by pretending that's where I'm coming from :)

RE: "please humor me and provide some examples of collectivism that do not tend toward tyranny."

Collectively enforced prohibitions on slavery. Collectively provided public schooling. Collective regulation of involuntary costs that can't be negotiated in markets. Collective determination of the money supply (it has lead to tyranny... I wouldn't say it "tends to lead to"). Collective provision for the common defense. Collective building of roads and other infrastructure. Collective care for the destitute.

You could dream up ways in which these things might coincide with the rise of tyranny, for sure. I don't think any of them "tend to lead to" tyranny.

Selecting a list of actions, some of which were taken by collectivists does not really address collectivism, writ large, that (I believe) Seth was referring to (Seth - please correct me if I'm wrong).

The most egregious examples of collectivism that come to mind are communism, socialism, and fascism. All these definitely tend toward tyranny.

Even the highly fetishized form of collectivism called democracy tends to tyranny - that's why the USA is a constitutional republic with limitations on the power of the state. (If only those limitations were enforced.)

Theoretically, "the people" you wish had power over the government should serve as a check. Unfortunately, "government by the people" is a fantasy that's incompatible with reality (like all other utopias).

I think I agree Dave.

I think your point is that all of these organizations have higher order checks and balances to remove power from a tyrant.

But, take away that highest order of check and balance against power concentration in a sovereign nation, then boom goes the dynamite.

Is that a fair way to put it?

I don't see any checks or balances in collectivism - I agree with your point that collectivism tends to lead to tyranny. DK posted a list of particular actions, rules and policies that illustrate a system marked by collective control, but I took your point to be at a higher level (at the political philosophy rather than policy level). That’s why I chimed in with my list of isms.

In the US, the constitution provides a (sadly only theoretical any more) limit on the collectivism of our government. I think your “ take away that highest order of check and balance against power concentration in a sovereign nation, then boom goes the dynamite.” is a good way to express the danger of collectivism. I also think the checks and balances have been eroding for many decades, and the pace is accelerating.

Agreed. I say we may be between two of Hayek's stages (from wikipedia):

"Disagreement about the practical implementation of any economic plan would invariably necessitate coercion in order for anything to be achieved."

And,

"Hayek further argued that the failure of central planning would be perceived by the public as an absence of sufficient power by the state to implement an otherwise good idea." Krugman already started us down that path by arguing the stimulus would fail because it wasn't big enough.

Nine months ago I thought the tide was rolling us into the next stage after that, voting more power to the state. But, now it seems that public opinion is starting to swing back. But the power may be for the taking. I'm amazed the Supreme Court didn't step in to challenge the powers government wrote for itself with even the first TARP.

But, I also agree with your point that the checks and balances have been eroding. We are way beyond charter.

What is the point of talking about something "writ large" if it has so many obviously different variants. Don't you guys usually not like aggregation?

Like I said - if you insist on talking only about collectivism writ large than my answer is "collectivism can lead to tyranny".

BTW - nice mention of a constitutional republic. Another great example of good collectivism that actually defends against tyranny.

"you guys."
Here again with the group identity response.

WRT the constitution - it's the limits on collectivism that defend against tyranny, not the collectivism. That distinction is not so subtle as you may think. (All that said, we may be caught up in semantics here. it seems to me that your use of the term "collectivism" is excessively broad. Plus, as stated above, your use of the term "self government" bears no similarity to my use of that term.)

RE: "WRT the constitution - it's the limits on collectivism that defend against tyranny, not the collectivism."

Huh? Sure it's a limit imposed on collectivism - but it's a collectively imposed limit on collectivism! The Constitution is still a collectivist document! This is my whole point that some collectivism actually guards against tyranny!

RE: "it seems to me that your use of the term "collectivism" is excessively broad."

It is broad, but I'm just using the definition you provided me with!!! This has been my complaint all along - it's too broad!

How would you define self-government? If a constitutional republic isn't an example of self-government I have no clue what is.

WOW!!! Your head's spinning so fast it's making me dizzy!

FYI - I didn't provide you with the definition you're misusing.

The key to the definition of self government is right in the name - it's an individual thing. Evidently you wouldn't understand...

True, seth did.

RE: "Evidently you wouldn't understand.."

Yes, you're so brilliant - clearly we who do not agree with you just don't understand.

Dude, you're the one that said "If a constitutional republic isn't an example of self-government I have no clue what is." A constitutional republic is definitely NOT an example of self government (at least the way I use the term). Is there a clearer proof of not understanding?

At the (totally unrealistic) extreme, self government represents an anarchist utopia (individuals governing themselves without any collective imposition of force, i.e. the complete absence of collectivism).

A limited Government leaves room for self government in the aspects of life where Government does not intrude. Allowing something to exist is not the same as being that something.

Good stuff. So, what's your definition of tyranny?

In my view, Hayek's point is nothing more than "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". In all of the examples you provided, there is a tendency to tyranny, at least by my definition.

Yes - when self-government is considered to be indistinguishable from tyranny, the discussion does get a little challenging to continue on with. I think we're both pretty well aware of what each other think, so I suppose nothing is lost.

This post makes no sense. It's like you just randomly jumped to a different discussion. Are you thinking your list of collective activities represents examples of self government?????

RE: "Are you thinking your list of collective activities represents examples of self government?????"

Well, in the United States, of course.

You're of the school of thought that truncates "no taxation without representation" after the second word, and still tries to pretend it's the heir of the classical liberal tradition, aren't you?

Thanks for clearing up my confusion. Your examples are not in any way related to self government in the way I use the term.

I totally don't understand your non-sequitur closing paragraph. You've missed so many of the points presented to you that I'd advise against drawing too many conclusions about what I think. (And, like I've said before, I'm sure my writing limitations have played a role in those misses.)

Your writing is quite clear (at least I've found it to be) - I'm just not buying into your foundational assumptions. It happens.

>>Well what do you want me to do?<<

Does what I want really matter?

>>I'm not sure what he means by "collectivism" - I'm not even sure he's trying to be faithful to what Hayek meant by "collectivism".<<

Asking what he meant by it could be a start. Did you ask? Did you come off as dismissive? Did it seem like you wanted to debate this rather than seemigly ignoring it?

>>I disagree with his point.<<

That's fine. But you wont get much sympathy around here for it. You should know that many around here see the "collective" as a mob-like behavior that seeks to concentrated power using the state.

>>What else would you have me say?<<

Hey, you're the one claiming to be interested in debate. Writing the things that would actually lead to one might be helpful. Do what you do, though, Kuehn.

All great points.

I agree with you that many Austrians are not rational in the sense that they are unwilling to compromise. I agree with you that many Austrians usually degenerate arguments into ad hominem attacks. I agree with you that many Austrians a prior believe that Keynesian economics is wrong (without even knowing what Keynesian economics is).

But, of course, I think we are conflating followers of Austrian economics with scholars of Austrian economics. I think that Paul Krugman should focus on debating with professional Austrian economists.

"I think that Paul Krugman should focus on debating with professional Austrian economists."

I agree. He would be demolished.

There was a youtube vid of Krugs...for the life of me I can't remember what it was about, but Kurgs was so certain of his position that he polled the audience...they all disagreed with him.

JCatalan, I don't like that kind of insult. Our side never compromises - your side's inclination not to compromise comes from a principled adherance to a principle of freedom, whereas, ours come from a certain confidence that we are never wrong. Have you ever read the commenters on the blogs like yglesias, krugman etc.

I did not mean to suggest that commentators on Keynesian or Monetarist blogs are any better; they are just as bad, or worse. My point is that the rational people on either side should focus on debating with the rational people on the other side.

But you never praised Krugman for saying,those who deny "Climate Change" are committing crime against humanity. Nor did you say that Keynesians do not engage ideas like structure of capital, time preference etc.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

you don't give us any credit for our loud and obnoxious ad hominems

I don't know, I had to nod my head at that post of Krugman's. I appreciate listening to the Austrian school. It's interesting, and they make some good points. But they do tend to dominate debates and completely ignore their opposition's points (a good example - for all the posts on here that savage fiscal stimulus, can you think of a single one that has even attempts to engage the concept of a liquidity trap?). Look at any Wikipedia article on an economic issue as well. Based on the editing behavior, you'd think that the Austrian school was mainstream.

Should mainstream economics engage the Austrians? Sure - of course. And there are serious Austrians out there to engage. But a lot of them just seem to be slogan and propaganda hockers. When you're trying to give a presentation and propaganda hockers dominate the Q&A (I'm just trusting Krugman's account on this), how does that help anything? There's a difference between engaging someone like Russ Roberts during his testimony today, and "trying to have a conversation with a dining room table" (to quote Barney Frank), which is often what engaging the Austrians feels like.

I thought your response to Krugman that you link was great - but I think you're being a little naive about what discussions with an Austrian can degenerate into. It's an insult to Hayek to associate him with that. It would be like engaging Sam Bowles or Robert Heilbroner (a very productive endeavor), versus engaging some hippie with a Che t-shirt that calls himself a Marxist.

Daniel - Why would we engage the concept of liquidity trap?

Oh I don't know - you seem to have a long-standing interest in refuting Keynesian economics.

Refuting Keynesian economics without talking about the liquidity trap is like refuting Austrian economics without talking about fiat money.

Daniel - For me, that seems like accepting the Keynesian premise.

"JMK, your stuff (or the stuff your ideas have become) works in these conditions, but not those conditions."

I don't accept the premise. First, I don't believe using the coercive force of government to try to right or control the economy (or an aggregate measure of the economy) is a legitimate power of government under almost any condition. If you believe it is, please point me to the language of the Constitution that enumerates that power. I could be wrong.

Second, I think that rationalizing the use of the government's coercive power for this or that smart condition is a danger that leads to more rationalization of using more power and so on. And, I believe that may be one of the mechanisms that tends collectivism toward tyranny. It's that same rationalization that leads good and well-intentioned people to do not so good things, like muck with climate data, use shell games to generate profits (Enron), borrow money they can't pay back or lend money they know won't be paid back. Monkeying with this stuff ends badly because it distorts the elements of the invisible hand (the five fingers, if you will): self-interest, prudence, propriety, benevolence and justice.

Sure, bad things happen without government intervention. But the invisible hand corrects much of that stuff usually before most people know what happened. Remember, the markets took Ken Lay out way before anybody realized what he was doing. Distort one of the elements of the invisible hand and it only makes it worse.

To use my illustration - I can recognize that the Austrian school relies on the distortions of fiat money without accepting the Austrian school of thought. The liquidity trap is the same - it's a major distortionary element that drives a lot of the Keynesian school of thought.

Nobody is asking you to accept it - all I'm saying is to engage it. People talk on here as if Keynesians think every downturn oughta be met with a big stimulus package. I don't think I've ever seen Don or Russ talk about the liquidity trap, despit all their posts about Keynes. It's nonsensical.

You don't have to agree with it - but if you're going to discuss Keynesianism at least make sure you discuss Keynesianism and not some caricature of Keynesianism.

By attacking both sides, Krugman can cast himself as non-partisan thereby enhancing his own credibility with those who also see the current political cast of actors as disfunctional.

Excellent question, Don (no surprise there). I often wonder the same thing, and not just about Krugman.

That has been my #1 question concerning liberals/progressives (which for me includes most of today's Republicans) for some time. No matter how much corruption, fraud, waste, good-ole boyism and outright stupidity is shown to exist in government, the answer is somehow always "Let's pass more power to the Federal government". Frankly, I just don't get it.

I'm also at a loss. It's amazing that even when confronted directly about the contradiction, most don't even consider changing their position. We see it with at least 2 of the regular posters here, and I've seen it first-hand in many others.

Just need to get the right people in power. And the right person is always a clone of the person doing the talking. The fact that others could disagree, or could act differently upon assuming power, is never acknowledged.

Barack Obama was the right person until he wasn't.

They plan to get the "right" people in power.

No comprehension of the systemic issues.

It is said that the wise person learns from the mistakes of others, the smart person learns from their own mistakes, and the stupid person doesn't learn.

Those who think it will all work out if the right people are given enough power are stupid.

Progressively stupid.

Krugman is an example of someone who values intentions more than actual results.

Krugman is someone who values the sound of his own voice more than actual results. Although, his idea of a good result is a totalitarian state, so maybe that's a good thing.

If asked directly if he supports a totalitarian state I'm sure Krugman would say no. Just as muirgeo and ddk would say no. But that is the end result of the government enforcing good intentions.

Cuba has solved the problem of homelessness by making it a crime to refuse to give food and shelter to anyone who knocks on the door.

They've also solved the problem of public transportation by making it a crime to pass a hitchhiker.

Good luck getting someone who supports good intentions through force to admit to supporting totalitarianism.

Thought that is exactly what they advocate.

I was a lot more concerned with Barlett's claim for Hooverism;

"Well, I thought, if we were facing the kind of crisis situation that we were when TARP and the original stimulus were enacted, that would be one thing.

But I don't think we're facing that. I think we have -- we did enact the stimulus. The money is -- there's a lot of money still to come from that in the pipeline. I think we have only spent about a fourth of it so far.

The unemployment rate is coming down. I think that there's a case for, let's wait a little while."

Muirduck, do you realize that evil-Hoover was simply FDR-lite? He was ousted for not going quite as far with the socialist policies as FDR promised. Hardly a paragon of libertarianism. In fact, Hoover thought that the government was a great instrument for society.

Bartlett is an avid Keynesian, and he is on our team.

Bruce Bartlett has been one of the most thoughtful voices through this crisis. Sometimes I think he still feels the need to prove he's a Republican for the sake of proving he's a Republican - I suppose it's an understandable impulse. But he's been very fair and balanced with what's right and wrong on both sides of the issue.

Awesome Danny. I was going to say it if you didn't. He was thoughtfully creating strawman arguments against Hayek, Austrian Economics, and other such deeply thought our strawmen in favor of Keynesian stimulus to save the day of government contractors like us and our buddies.

A word of advice - sarcasm is a lot more biting and effective when it's coherent.

English is my fourth language, so I'm not very good. You misunderstand. I was not being sarcastic. We are on the same team, Hotdog.

RE: "English is my fourth language"

Impressive - it's my first and I still struggle with it :)

don't be so hard on yourself.

English is pretty much the only thing you don't struggle with.

LMAO!

Ouch.

Yes - snipes from methinks really keep me up at night ;-)

Thanks for clearing that up. Here we all were terrified that I keep you up at night.

That's not Hooverism. Hoover's approach was actually a milder version of FDR's. Massive defecit spending, price controls, make-work jobs programs and the like.

The myth that Hoover was laissez faire came far later. It's actually quite entertaining to read FRD'r campaign speeches when he ran against Hoover. He spend a great deal of time advocating a more laissez fair approach and denouncing Hoover's interventionism.

I always find this Hoover revisionism weird.

Was he Don Boudreaux's dream president? No - of course not. But we didn't run a deficit until 1932!!!!! It's hardly a Keynesian or interventionist approach. And even those deficits were puny. Hoover was a muddled, more or less Progressive early 20th century Republican with no interest in serious counter-cyclical policy at all. He wasn't wedded to laissez faire, but that doesn't mean he was a notable interventionist.

RE: "Massive defecit spending"

You're kidding, right? We're talking single-digit deficits as a percent of GDP THREE YEARS AFTER THE START OF THE CRISIS! He is not a von Mises clone - I'll grant you that. I'm not sure you can claim much more than that.

As for Hoover, he is caricatured as a "laissez-faire" President; so, the "revisionism" is appropriate, since he was nothing of the kind. Comparing him to Calvin Coolidge illustrates this nicely.

He wasn't a Coolidge, but let's be serious here. He was closer to Coolidge than he was to FDR - and we've both already admitted FDR was a wimp in regard to deficit spending.

So as I said - no of course he's not Don Boudreaux's dream president. But there's a point where the revisionism obscures more than it highlights.

Indeed, Coolidge was a very unusual President as far as modern American Presidents go. The man vetoed a farm subsidy bill for goodness sake. He refused to visit the areas flooded in 1927 (what American President would miss such a photo-op?), which a more "dynamic" President like TR or LBJ would not have passed up. Coolidge is one of the most unusual Presidents in American history.

I'm sure I've asked you this before, but what period of history is your primary interest/expertise?

I used to mostly read early American history - revolutionary and early national period. But over the past year (for obvious reasons), I've been reading a lot more about the inter-war years, as well as both world wars. If this is what you work with a lot, I'd love to hear some recommendations.

In reality I know very little about modern American history (well, from the perspective of an expert). The only real depth I have is in the early republic period.

David Greenberg has a newish book out about him that is part of the excellent "American Presidents" series (I have not read it). Robert Farrell and Robert Sobel both published in 1998 biographies on Coolidge.

You might be interested in resources at the Omohundro Institute for Early American History (http://oieahc.wm.edu/) - my thesis adivsor's (economics) wife is the editor there. They've done a lot of interesting work on the connections between the Caribbean and the northern colonies. Not something I know much about, but you reminded me of that, and I had always found that aspect of their work interesting.

Read some biographies of Coolidge then compare them to those of Hoover; they were quite different men with very different notions of what the role of the state is. Hoover and FDR were of the same mold as far as politicians and ideology is concerned, Coolidge was not.

I'd agree that FDR and Hoover's disposition was more similar. But Hoover and Coolidge's administrations operated more similarly.

Coolidge and Hoover operated similarly? Hoover raised taxes increased spending by 54% and was a protectionist... How is that similar? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122576077569495...

You also have to remember that presumably the policies you would engage in during a bubble are different from the policies you would engage in during a crash - at least for most presidents. You're comparing Coolidge - who was out before the crash - to Hoover, who straddled the Depression - to Roosevelt, who spent his entire presidency in depression or war. Of course Coolidge will be less interventionist. If Roosevelt was elected in the 20s rather than the 30s I'm sure his policies would look pretty damn close to Coolidge's.

"More similarly" than Hoover and Roosevelt was what I said - of course there were differences. A 54% increase still means a budget more in line with Coolidge than Roosevelt - and that's just spending. In terms of the deficit, Hoover was definitely more in line with Coolidge. I'm not sure what you mean by the protectionism point - Coolidge was a supporter of the tariff. He did reject things like price controls with farmers - but then his Commerce secretary (Hoover) was in agreement with him on that. Coolidge supported wage and hour legislation, child labor laws, food safey measures, worker representation on corporate boards, and he imposed controls during WWI. He wasn't identical to Hoover, no. But I don't think the fact that Hoover waited three years after the crash to run a deficit qualifies him as being more similar to Roosevelt.

I disagree. Hoover did a whole number of things that Coolidge would not have done.

"Similar" of course not being a synonym for "identical"

Importantly Coolidge and Hoover were are also light years apart on racial/ethnic issues; Coolidge was probably the most pro-civil rights President of the post-bellum period, whereas Hoover was almost Wilson's mirror image. Wilson being the most actively racist President in U.S. history. There is a 1944 film about Wilson (done by RKO I think) that is really galling because it paints Wilson as if he were a great advocate of civil rights. Makes me vomit every time I see it advertised.

Well, FDR did little in the way of counter-cyclical spending as well - despite the myths we were taught in school.

Now what FDR did try to do - all the constant experimentation, the administration's desire to tamp down on and undermine "excessive competition," its racism and anti-semitism, etc. - were all pretty nasty things by themselves. But as far as counter-cyclical policy is concerned, it did very little of that.

DOn't forget the experimentation with confiscation of personal property called gold. Let's hope the current manifestaion of FDR doesn't try that with our 401k's.

Right! Hence the crude, but marginally informative observation by many people that the real fiscal stimulus was WWII. FDR was a wimp in this regard - I think it's safe to say most economists acknowledge this. The fact that some people would then go on to say that Hoover was actually a big-time deficit spender is truly amazing to me.

Everything in context, and it is rarely fair to compare past to future.

Agreed.

Well, if you consider putting millions of men into forced government service as stimulus, well, I guess so. Really that is just faux prosperity of course.

For his time he was a big time deficit spender.

Which is why I said "crude". I never entirely liked that argument precisely because sending so many men off to battle is going to have an unambiguous impact on unemployment. Unfortunately, we don't have comparable massive deficit spending and factory orders without a war.

You've said nothing to refute his characterization, which was accurate. Federal spending increased 57% under Hoover, and he did enact price controls. FDR campaigned against him as a big spender (just as Obama did against Bush). Here's how Hoover described his own actions:

"We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic."

And again:

"We developed cooperation between the federal, state, and municipal governments to increase public works. We persuaded employers to "divide" time among their employees so that as many as possible would have some incomes. We organized the industries to undertake renovation, repair, and, where possible, expand construction."

Hoover was an interventionist minded President, who had a history of approaching government in the same manner he did engineering, which necessarily involved top-down control and the idea that with the right kind of tinkering, anything could be set right.

That's not Hooverism.

So can the history revisionist tell me why if Hoover was "FDR lite" how did the economy get much worse during Hoover and gradually improved during and after FDR?

Didn't some one mention Cognitive dissonance? I mean really. Your positions on this are childish and laughable.

Especially when one can not argue the Coolidge was an interventionist. Of course he wasn't. How'd his non-intervention turn out??? That's not even a matter of re-writing history. Seems the free marketeers don't even want to remember that bit of history.

Again your argument now as then is, " How come it's taking then so long to glue back together the shattered vase." while ignoring who's shattered it in the first place.


Come on guys. Time to grow up. Humanity has some really serious problems facing it and this will require adult thinking and decision making.

"Come on guys. Time to grow up. Humanity has some really serious problems facing it and this will require adult thinking and decision making."

Somehow Lenin's words seem so fitting: "useful idiots".

Time to jettison the kiddie corp...

Let's hope the winds of change carry us into 2010 and through 2012.

Again your argument now as then is, " How come it's taking then so long to glue back together the shattered vase." while ignoring who's shattered it in the first place.

You are so right. Fate of our economy was hanging by a thread - and thread had a Glass-Steagal vase attached to it's end - Clinton Shattered it to pieces. with the help of the gang of 535 in D.C. It's been very difficult for Bush and Obama to put the vase back together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gramm-Leach-B...

Glas-Steagal would not even have been necessary (not that I'm arguing it actually was) if we didn't have the Federal Reserve and FDIC insurance.

It is very important for muirgeo to sleep well at night!

You are right, Economy gradually improved under FDR. He reduced unemployment by drafting able bodied young men into the army. For taking bullets, and firing them are the way to improve economy. If we can get all the experienced able bodies men to go overseas, and replace them with unskilled teenager, put in price controls and rationing, that would be the recipe for wonderful improvement in the productive capacity of the economy. Oh one more thing, if we can retool the factories from making things that would improve the material quality of human life to making bullets and bombs to be dropped overseas, that will be a great productive policy. WWII proved it "GDP" grew the strongest ever in U.S history.


BTW, Bartlett is on our team -
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/13/john-maynard-k...

The People's Romance.

I am not an economist but, from what I have seen, neither is Mr. Krugman.

"Why is he optimistic that an entity that can, and does, so easily malfunction will nevertheless – when vested with greater power – work selflessly and smartly to improve the lives of ordinary Americans?"

Perhaps, most likely, because it is Krugman's mental process that is dysfunctional.

Cognitive dissonance?

Oh, not too much.

More like sheer hackery.

"Hackery" might be a little unfair. After all, he openly criticizes Democrats.

The truly amazing part is that he acknowledges government's destructiveness and and supports increased government authority.