Op-Ed: "Stimulus II Won't Work, Either"

President Obama won’t use the “stimulus” label to describe his nearly half-trillion-dollar jobs bill, but that refusal can’t hide the fact that he has no idea how economies recover from recessions. “Stimulus” is a tainted label because his $800 billion bill in 2009 was a failure. His economic team promised that passing that bill would keep unemployment from exceeding 8 percent. The bill passed, and unemployment climbed to more than 9 percent and has stayed there ever since.

With election day only 14 months off, one can readily see Obama’s desperation for a job program.

Read the full op-ed, "Stimulus II Won't Work, Either," here.

Unemployment Keeps Rising

Unemployment hit 9.8 percent last month (a conservative estimate, to be sure). The Obama administration once said it would approach 9 percent -- if the "stimulus" did not pass. With the "stimulus" it was supposed to be less than 8 percent by now. (See graph.)

When do we declare the "stimulus" a failure? Huh?

The Stimulus is Working!

Stimulus has cities securing lobbyists
Race is on to get bit of $787 billion

Headline in today's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (subscription site)

Free to Consume, Or Not

As someone who is rather less eager to consume than previously, I feel harassed by the government, mainstream economists, and news media. You may feel the same way. Apparently, we aren’t consuming enough to suit them. At least that’s what they want us to think. More than that, they want us to feel guilty and do something about it–such as going into debt. Hence the Fed and Treasury’s program to make it easier for us to borrow.

The rest of the latest TGIF, "Free to Consume, Or Not," is at the Foundation for Economic Education website.

Remember the Broken Window!

The debate over what kind of government spending will "stimulate" or not "stimulate" the economy is beside the point. As Bastiat taught us, and Henry Hazlitt reminded us, you have to consider what is "not seen"--what will not happen if the government borrows and spends scarce resources. That is all that really matters in this discussion. If some Keynesian replies that those resources will remain idle otherwise, ask why he or she is not inquiring into the government policies that make and keep productive resources idle. That would be a better use of time than lobbying for a bogus stimulus bill.

Cross-posted at Anything Peaceful.

Silver Lining on the "Stimulus" Bill

Update: The Senate bill is now $827 billion, so the following item has been overtake by events. Hopefully the outcome alluded to below will still take place.

Breaking news from CNN:

Democratic and Republican Senate negotiators reached a tentative agreement for a $780 billion economic stimulus package, according to two Democratic sources and a GOP negotiator. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took the list of cuts to the nearly $900 billion Senate bill to fellow Democrats, and the Senate continued the debate into the evening.

Below $800 billion! Well, look at the bright side. Maybe it will drive Paul Krugman crazy.

Republican Albatross II

Why does every Republican in Congress (with the obvious exception) begin his or her statement about the pending "stimulus" bill by saying, "Of course we need a stimulus bill..."?

Republican Albatross

I'm glad the House Republicans voted unanimously against Obama's spending bill, but still, I'm slightly embarrassed to be agreeing with them. After the last eight years of government expansion, the Republicans are rightly perceived as hypocrites, which discredits anything they say about reducing government power, spending, borrowing, etc. Their opposition looks like pure politics (not to mention protection of their wing of the corporate state), enabling economist Brad DeLong to dismiss even academic economists who oppose the bogus stimulus spending as "ethics-free Republican hacks."

As I've said before, the Republican Party is a massive negative externality for the radical free-market movement.

Boon or Doggle?

Even if government spending in theory could “stimulate the economy” in a genuine, sustainable way, it would not follow that politicians and bureaucrats would know how to spend the money intelligently. The pressures to do something now and the perverse incentives facing those in charge of the money guarantee there would be more doggle than boon.

The rest of this week's TGIF, "Boon or Doggle," is at the Foundation for Economic Education website.

Government Can't Stimulate the Economy

The money sluices are about to open wide on Capitol Hill. With a new Congress convened and a new president about to take office, we are likely to see record-shattering government expenditures. All inhibitions about deficit spending, as weak as they have been in recent years, are now dissolved. The motto among those in control is: Spend now!

Why? To “stimulate the economy.” Well, that’s a lousy reason. The economy doesn’t need stimulation. It needs freedom. More precisely, we need freedom — to pursue our ends through production and trade unmolested by know-nothing politicians in Washington and the 50 state capitals.

The rest of this week's op-ed, "Government Can't Stimulate the Economy," is at The Future of Freedom website.