Young Rebels Aim to Set College Economics Straight

[Guest commentator Edward Furst, introduced here a couple of weeks ago in an essay about Young Americans for Liberty, has some disturbing news concerning the way economics is taught at the nation’s colleges.  It would seem that more than a few professors are either poorly informed about the subject, or, like Paul Krugman, downright nutty. Moreover, their ideological bias is pushing the already dismal science beyond the pale of reason. The good news is that young people like Edward, a Mises Institute graduate and online rabble rouser, are fighting hard to combat economic ignorance. In the essay below, we glimpse the young libertarian and former collegian at work. RA]

Over the next seven years, the Federal Government is poised to squander triple the amount of money spent fighting WWII. And that’s adjusted for inflation! Total unfunded liabilities on the federal ledger consistently exceed the GDP of the entire world.  The government could raise the top marginal income tax rate to 100% for all those shysters making more than $250K annually and not even cover the deficit. They could liquidate the assets of every Fortune 500 company and every billionaire in America, yet red ink would still flow from Imperial fountain-pens like human and animal waste down the Ganges. “Fear Not!” say the demagogues. “It’s not a spending problem, but a revenue problem!”

Once upon a time, such deluded statements earned one a trip to the doctor.  Now, they get you an esteemed economics faculty position at some prestigious university.  I got to know this phenomenon well when I studied Principles of Macroeconomics under Anne Gongwe, a professor at Colorado State University. Anne is a delightful person, but I must say, her Ph.D. would better serve as kindling for Rick’s readers during the coming collapse than as a qualification to inculcate young minds. According to her, a lull in the rate of inflation constitutes deflation; Chinese speculators caused the housing bubble; and, the response to timid capital is a shot of liquidity (i.e., inflation).

Of course Ms. Gongwe is not at fault. Rather, this battiness pervades the highest ranks of collegiate economics. After all, our required text, Macroeconomics, was co-authored by everybody’s favorite left-wing loony, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman (the very same Nobel Prize held by warlord-in-chief Barack Obama and Yasser Arafat).  Apparently Krugman’s calls to lower interest rates in the early 2000s to stimulate housing speculation were not enough to dissuade academia of his brilliance.

On page 14 of his book, in the introductory How Economies Work section, we learn that “Markets usually lead to efficiency,” but when they don’t, “Government intervention can improve society’s welfare.” Krugman cites the example that motorists have no incentive not to congest traffic on public roads. He posits that the government can solve the problem by “subsidizing the cost of public transportation and taxing the sale of gasoline to individual drivers.” Problem solved. Krugman frames the issue as a “market failure” despite public roads being as divorced from the market price system as a Soviet bread line.

Orwellian Disinformation

But the Orwellian mis- and dis-information doesn’t stop there. Last week, a friend of mine, Eric Roche, a former Young Americans for Liberty activist at Colorado State University, related a story to me of how his econ professor was unaware that the Federal Reserve system existed prior to the Great Depression, and how she “informed” the class that interest rates were set by the free market during the 1920s.

This was the sort of thing that motivated me to read more on my own. When the instructors are not outright misinformed, they spew the statist/Keynesian narrative that has put our country in such dire straits. I had to correct my teachers on a nearly daily basis, and that’s not how education is supposed to work. In tandem with an awareness of the looming Education Bubble, the aforementioned dynamic of systemic indoctrination drove me to abandon my pursuit of a bachelor’s degree. I anticipate a growing trend of young students doing the same thing. Leaving “Higher Education” has offered a great opportunity to learn and attain some marketable skills. I only regret there being one less person in the halls of academia to challenge the status quo.

***

(If you’d like to have Rick’s Picks commentary delivered free each day to your e-mail box, click here.)

  • Rich July 4, 2011, 4:00 am

    Aloha all Independent free thinkers:
    Having identified the fundamental problem as rigged interest rates, can we at once everywhere realize freeing them is also the solution?
    When free markets crush Wall Street, the Fed and Treasury derivatives with all their central planning hubris, will not economic productivity return with cleansing defaults and higher interest rates rewarding thrift and productivity?
    Happy Fireworks All…

    • Robert July 5, 2011, 6:08 pm

      “When free markets crush Wall Street, the Fed and Treasury derivatives with all their central planning hubris, will not economic productivity return with cleansing defaults and higher interest rates rewarding thrift and productivity?”

      -Yes. Undoubtedly and absolutely.

  • Jill July 3, 2011, 11:41 pm

    Where is the example of this free market where everything works so perfectly for the benefit of all? It’s easy to say how perfectly this free market would work, with no government intervention, when such a market does not exist. It is a beautiful ideal untarnished by reality. You can never be proven wrong. Or right. So it’s easy to assume whatever you want.

    I love these 2 videos below. they are much more educational than any college economics textbook I ever encountered. I think both Keynes and Hayek were sincerely attempting to solve the economic problems of their time. And they are both given credit for their good-intentioned ideas here.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc

    • Robert July 5, 2011, 6:29 pm

      “Where is the example of this free market where everything works so perfectly for the benefit of all?”

      -Have you visited an informal swap meet lately?

      It existed until the first person came along who declared himself omnipotent enough that if you deposited with him two tomatos today, that you would be rewarded with three tomatos tomorrow, even though he did not grow tomatos- he only STORED tomatos.

      Pay no attention to how that third tomato would come into existence… just trust him- Three tomatos for two tomatos.

      Once the tomatos were replaced with pure abstractions (like printed paper currencies) the game became so easy it was nearly ridiculous- there will always be adequate paper and green ink to suppy any level of demand, so let’s get out there and promise a HUNDRED paper tomatos tomorrow for two real tomatos today, and if people come in to withdraw their two tomatos we will instead give them the equivalent price of two tomatos expressed in printed paper currency, and tell them to go straight to the local market and trade their currency for two real tomatos.

      You see? the global ponzi is not about market forces- it is about contract violation.

      The minute it becomes legal to contract an exchange between real goods and an empty promise to deliver, you are operating a Ponzi Scheme. The scale of the fraud is immaterial.

  • tom July 3, 2011, 7:17 pm

    I have copied and pasted from a text file that is larger than a comment window, so that I can see my comment better, and while doing so, I have omitted two paragraphs. Here they are:

    Why Soviets banned prices. They wanted to achieve a life without a private property on the means of production. As soon as they established such a regime, it become clear that the regime can not work, for the quality of production was suffering a precipitous decline. A reasonable, honest management would have concluded that “this doesn’t work” and would have been done with it.

    Not the stupid people. Oh no. This is not how they deal with the truth. Stupid people are not frightened by the evidence of the fact that they have made a bad bet. Nope. They believe that if they pretend that there is no damage, they can continue forever, and at least not suffer the public humiliation of being proven visibly stupid. So, they ignore the reality, and often outright ban it!

    Take Obama, for instance. I easily forgive him trying to build a socialist healthcare system and trying to fix the economy by an edict to exercise even more consumption. After all he is a politician. What makes him unforgivable is his insistence on doing the wrong thing. When he ignores the clear indication that he is wrong, he bans the indication and seeks a way to “fix the consequence”. Any time you notice such behavior, where instead of quitting alcohol a drunk seeks an anti-hangover pill, you are surely dealing with an idiot.
    Just like the Soviets banning the Pricing Mechanism that was offensive in it’s truthfulness.

    On regulating Interest Rates:
    We appear to still have the Interest Rates. Conceivably, we could still use them to regulate the economy between consumption and production.

    Except, we do not, and can not know the particularities of factual evidence of a need to produce or to consume, that millions of our citizens do encounter every day. Such information could not be collected, processed and analyzed in time, even by most efficient of computers.
    So, we do not know which way to go with the Interest Rate! WE have the control but no slightest idea on what to do with it!

    And what if I am wrong? What if we could build a computer fast enough to do it? Aaah, grasshopper, here lies the rub. If we could then we would have a problem: why even bother using this complicated computer if all it is doing is copying what free market would do anyway?

    And this is where you understand, that any time any government takes control of interest rates, they can not possibly be wishing to simply do what is the best for the economy, emulating the free market interest rates, as then they should simply leave that to the free market.
    Thus, they necessarily are wishing to weaken the economy of a nation, to inflict a dis balance between the production and consumption, as it only this way that one can have a difference that can be stolen.

    If you want to steal on a national scale, you must take control of the interest rates. This will allow you to dis balance the economy, blinding it, and it will leave you either with too much production or too much consumption. That excess is what you can convert to a political promise and cash it out. So, in a nutshell, the price of your individual success, would be the harm you inflict on your nation.

    Now, imagine how good you are going to look in front of two teleprompters, looking like Moses guiding his children. Doesn’t it worth ruining a nation?

    • SB July 4, 2011, 2:31 am

      Tom,

      Amen. I didn’t read all the way down in the posts to see your writing…or else I would have not even bothered. For the most part, I believe that regulators come in to existence to simply try and “fix” the problems that a planned economy create…unfortunately they always fail on a grand scale.

      Not to seem too pessimistic but I really don’t see where we’ll ever truly have free markets…too many people walking the earth that think “if we only just regulate this or that aspect, it’ll work perfectly”. In other words, there are always people out there…many people actually…that simply believe that they think they know better than the next guy. Our politicians, as heinous as most people think they are, are a true reflection of the masses.

  • tom July 3, 2011, 6:48 pm

    mario cavolo,

    He is right about the interest rates being the root problem.

    Observe, if you like:

    Economic crises are not the situations when someone lost and someone won. Crisis happens when an economy as a whole utilized more than it had produced.

    Nothing can be done without funds. This explains that if funding was only cut in time, no overspending would occur. This includes the government spending as well, as they too, short of outright inflating, must borrow and compete for funds.

    Then, how can we know if we should make our funds more or less expensive to others? Government can’t tell us, for two reasons. First, the government cannot consist of smart people. For if they were truly smart, they too would be able to see that fraud is not a good thing and that the government is evil. Second, as Mises have famously pointed out in his “Socialism”, no matter how smart any of us are, we still can not know what everyone of us truly needs at any single moment. He said, that the USSR must collapse for this very reason. Not having the free market watching the economy, USSR would necessarily go from overproducing to under-producing to overproducing again, until their overproduction won’t matter since it wasn’t of the kind that is needed, and their under-production imposes a terrible price on economy. You tell me, if Mises was correct about USSR.

    Free markets use a price of anything as a sole determinant of a necessity of further production. USSR banned market pricing, because market pricing unambiguously told them that crappy soviet goods needed not be produced, while western goods needed to be imported, bankrupting the treasury. Instead of allowing people to reinstall private property on tools of production, and as a consequence to produce goods that are desired, Soviets banned market pricing. We can not blame Russians too much for those were Soviets , the dumbest of all people, and not strictly Russians. Keep in mind that Russia was historically a “Chaostan” (see Richard Maybury), unlike western nations that knew that private property is a secret to prosperity.

    Now, market pricing can be seen in your regular prices of goods, in wages, rents, tips, even pawn shop rates. Interest rates are the prices for an opportunity to employ a capital accumulated by someone else.

    Interest Rates are responsible for regulating consumption versus production, the very same thing that describes the economic crises of a country as a whole if and when not in balance.

    Ban these prices (Interest Rates) and your economy is immediately blind with regards to the myriads of small decisions made every second for funds availability.

    Our leadership is stupid people, this is given. This is why you and I are not even trying to become politicians. We know better.

    But, lately, namely since 1913, they have become incredibly dumb. No longer they err in small things. They have forgotten the basics that non-chaostan, western nations knew for centuries, and they muddle in things that they can not possibly even begin to understand.

    I believe this is why Vesnaj found it funny. It is not funny to me. It is quite sad. Oh well. We can not be on the leading edge all the time. That would be unfair to other nations. I guess we must become dumber, so that another country has a chance to become an economic giant. It is no different than a personal life – death sequence…

    • Mario cavolo July 4, 2011, 6:47 am

      Hi Tom. Thanks much for sharing a much broader knowledge on this!

  • Vesnaj July 2, 2011, 8:55 pm

    Oh wow, Rick. You’ve got quite a few commies here, stuck glued to your site, making sure that your wise words are always rolled in some tar and feathers.

    I had quite a few chuckles reading their comments. Such as “The idea that low interest rates caused this mess is absurd.” That one was priceless.

    • mario cavolo July 3, 2011, 1:30 pm

      Vesnaj,

      “The idea that low interest rates caused this mess is absurd.”

      Priceless? I don’t get it. If anyone thinks low interest rates caused this mess, I can’t imagine such narrowmindedness. I’m no better than an amateur analyzing markets and economics and can easily see that a look at the past 20 years of American government and economic history reveals a list of half a dozen major contributing factors to the “mess” we are in today.

      Low interest rates is just one part of the story and is more a consequence not a cause of the situation our greedy govt and banking elites put us all in.

      DECISIONS by those leaders are what put us in this mess. Decision like repealing Glass Steagal and other choices which led to the subprime debacle and other means in their ponzi scheme pillaging of the system followed by a citizen-funded bailout.

      A current mini-version now is the Greece bailout… a small country whose system is bloated all manners of financial corruption, yet the solution to once again make the citizens pay for it and barely make any changes that benefit the rich, self-serving elite buttheads. Back in the U.S. , what changes were made to the system after the debacle to protect the country, its citizens? Hah, what a joke, its rather unfathomable time we are witnessing and suffering historically speaking.

    • martin snell July 3, 2011, 4:52 pm

      Vesnaj, you sure seem to have a lopsided view of reality. I guess anyone the right of Atilla the Hun is a commie. Just note that it was lax regulation (letting the banks do what they wanted – you know free markets) that helped cause the mess. Believe me you do not want to live in a country with totally free markets.

    • SB July 4, 2011, 2:13 am

      “Just note that it was lax regulation (letting the banks do what they wanted – you know free markets) that helped cause the mess. Believe me you do not want to live in a country with totally free markets.”

      I’m sure that lax regulation helped further the mess…but we do not have, in any way, free markets when you have someone/anybody setting interest rates. If you want an effective price control mechanism…setting interest rates is the way to do it. Interest affect everything…or do you disagree? You don’t know what free markets would be like…nor does anyone else (living)…we haven’t had them since 1913.

      More regulation…give me a break. Look at all of the regulating bodies already in existence within government…did they stop the problem? No. If government just concentrated on protecting property rights and prosecuting fraud, we’d be much better off. Are they doing that now? Not even close.

  • SteveJH July 2, 2011, 1:26 pm

    Following on from Chris T. I recently met an old acquaintance who had become an economics professor.
    In the course of discussing his elevation he made the comment that if you put a very left wing slant to all your writings it was far easier to climb the greasy pole.
    Worked for him!

  • Henry Hub July 2, 2011, 3:31 am

    So Fast Eddie has decided that he will “abandon my pursuit of a bachelor’s degree”. So it looks like this smart a*s will be be perusing a career at Wal-Mart or McDonalds. There he will learn the harsh reality of the unregulated free enterprise system. At night he can console himself by reading Von Mises or Milton Friedman. Good luck Eddie!

    • mario cavolo July 2, 2011, 7:02 am

      ….While I can very much understand the view that getting a Bachelor’s degree for many is not helpful in today’s world, I have to suggest to everyone that is the exception, not the rule. In Asia/China, education is prized and in fact, if you don’t have an MBA, you’re way behind in the career and employment world. Almost every professional white collar Chinese I know has or is now pursuing their MBA. It is a standard expectation in the international business marketplace. I have suffered again and again in my career because I don’t have a Bachelor’s degree. There was recent survey showing that people who have them make far more money overall than those who don’t. So even with the education system’s flaws and problems and bubbling tuition, having one is probably better than not. Though one should also consider in which country and at which university that Bachelor’s should be obtained. When you apply for a corporate position, you can be sure that, like it or not, fair or not, flawed or not, the MBA’s are on the top of the pile followed by the Bachelors followed by yours wayyyyyy down at the bottom. Yes of course this problem can be overcome by other strategies, relationship building, etc. as I have proven myself for many years, but I have lost countless opportunities and dollars because I don’t have a degree.

  • Robert July 2, 2011, 12:33 am

    “It should be an obvious point of logic that a rapidly scaling population & even faster scaling economy with billions of distributed transactions to decide upon, needs a system where currency supply and value floats, pulled by Aggregate Demand and Group Production. ”

    Ummm- it should also be equally obvious that if the scaling is a strawman based on the fact that the majority of those “Billions” of transactions are superflous, and that the same net economic yield could be achieved with 1/10,000 the number of processes and transactions, then suddenly currency supply and float does not become such a major factor…. No?

    I mean- could it be that the reason we are on a runaway money printing train is due to the fact that so much trade transaction volume in global markets is being done by machines, and that these trade volumes yield fundamentally no economic advantage? That’s actually a rhetorical question… I already know the answer.

    “No amount of individual hoarding alone will scale up to provide the infrastructure we currently leverage.”

    This statement implies that at some point things naturally become so huge that objective capital valuation becomes impossible. I say Baloney- it’s all simply a matter of price.

    Markets do not let prices remain artificial forever. Real prices (on all things) ALWAYS assert themselves in the fullness of time.

    • roger erickson July 2, 2011, 5:03 am

      Lincoln Electric sums up what a good chunk of the USA used to be like, before people like “Young Americans for Liberty” showed up. A challenged & overworked constituency is a happy, successful one, IF they stick together.

      > James Lincoln, the architect of many of the
      > company’s welfare capitalist benefits, summed it up
      > perfectly. Quoting Koller’s book Spark:

      “I knew that if I could get the people in the company to want the company to succeed as badly as I did, there would be no problems we could not solve together.”

      http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/06/23/the-remarkable-true-story-of-the-company-that-does.aspx

      What’s the price on discernment, initiative, parsing & group coordination? Some “market” forces work on the time frame of generations, and you have to invest in your kids, family, neighborhood & country accordingly. Market prices didn’t build the USA, Yankee ingenuity did.

  • roger erickson July 1, 2011, 11:38 pm

    The sad part is that the “Young Americans for Liberty” have plenty to gripe about, but take a cargo cult approach to imagined remedies. Nothing they say will scale either.

    It should be an obvious point of logic that a rapidly scaling population & even faster scaling economy with billions of distributed transactions to decide upon, needs a system where currency supply and value floats, pulled by Aggregate Demand and Group Production. We are, after all, a nation state populated by a social species. We live & die based upon our ability to compound our return on coordination. No amount of individual hoarding alone will scale up to provide the infrastructure we currently leverage.

    The very definition of fiat currency makes it clear that a monopoly issuer cannot possibly borrow what it alone creates, and that the concept of revenue in the form of it’s own fiat currency is completely obsolete.

    Sadly, trying to apply superficial gold std concepts to a scaling system renders the “Young Americans for Liberty” into the “Young Americans for Confused Thinking.” That’s sad because the confused and their options are soon parted. By default, they’re becoming part of the problem, and if they don’t start being incredibly more penetrating and agile in their analyses, they’ll be noted in history as the “Young Americans for Indentured Servitude.”

  • Chris T. July 1, 2011, 11:22 pm

    Rich, thanks for taking this back one generation, to one of the fathers of economic misindoctrination.

    Paul Samuelson, despite all of the accolades the MS economics profession has heaped upon him, is prob. THE most culpable individual for the sorry state that modern economic thinking is in.

    Not only for his espousal of simply flawed economic theory, but also for spreading the pseudo-scientistic attitude of modern economics, with its need (in order to appear to be hard science) for 60 multi-variable equations and economeTRICKs, to prove the simplest things that are almost self-evident.

    His vehicle was his textbook, with it’s widest-dispersal by his acolytes and sycophants.
    Even if you are not stupid, if your introduction to economics by all these “experts” is from only that viewpoint, how to escape it?
    While studying economics at Wharton (where Laurence Klein was an economics high priest), I was certainly never exposed to any of Mises or Hayeks work, it was a pure Keynesian/Friedmanite dichotomy.
    I doubt that in those nascent internet days, the library even stocked much of that stuff, certainly never checked to find out.

    It takes/took some extraordinary curiosity to stumble on this stuff, and much more of it, to call the professors, the experts on this BS, esp. when a right answer will only give a bad grade. Plus one is immediately confronted with the all too common expert thinking: that only physicians can comment on health, only economists can comment on economics, only historians can comment on history, and who are you?
    (with that belief-believed today generally, polymaths like Jefferson, Goethe, Franklin, etc should have been just full of so much hot air…)

    As Ron Paul has pointed out many times, these people in their teachings do not even see the utter logical flaw when they accept and proselytize free market mechanisms for all things, just not for money itself.

    That brings up Jill’s comment above, and of course Martin Snell’s (whose logic was already properly called out by others).

    They, and many others, think that “setting” interest rates, as the Fed does, is natural, self-evident, even desirable, and certainly necessary, when it is nothing of the sort, and is just manipulation by another name.

    Without that enabling set-up, as wished-for and then implemented a century ago, there would be none of the “deficits don’t matter” attitude Martin wrongfully only attributes to Reagan, or any lack of regulation keeping the system honest, as Jill wishes.
    The Fed enables government profligacy, enables the conduct Jill wishes to regulate away, and so on.

    It is amazing how much of today’s ills can be traced back to the Fed, and the “monetary” system it serves.

    Illegal immigration? check
    Outsourcing to Shenzen, Bangalore, and the rest of the non-English named world? check
    C-section and psychopharmaceutical abuse in medicine? check
    Bad education, ruinuous “higher” ed costs? check
    Family structure beakdown? check
    Decaying roads, bridges, water + sewer lines? check
    troops in 120+ foreign lands, and 700+ foreign bases? chcck
    wars of aggression (camouflaged of course as something else)? check
    an unstoppable national debt? check
    and many more.

    Each one can take a little essay to trace-out, but when looking at the human (inter)action component of most of our problems, it can be traced back to that system.

    While Samuelson was not among the instigators, his influence over economics in the academy via his misbegotten tome, is right up there. Perhaps Galbraith, too, in giving all this a shiny veneer at that other ivy in Boston 🙂

    • John Jay July 2, 2011, 4:43 pm

      Chris T,
      Your litany of the structural changes forced on the people of this country sums it all up. The power elite used the mother of all pincer/ flank attacks on this country to bring it down. Their strategy was not blitzkreig, but relentless infiltration. Kept up the illusion that all was well for decades with noisy election campaigns, MSM/Sports distractions, and cheap money from the Fed. The power elite will slowly reveal the truth to the people now that it is all a fait accompli, so they don’t have to pretend they care anymore. You can look at our cities that are in actual or economic ruin, Detroit, Cleveland, Baltimore, Los Angeles, etc. to see we are now a conquered nation that the victors are carving up day by day. Like the Gauls said to the Romans in 390 BC, “Vae Victis”.

  • Robert July 1, 2011, 8:57 pm

    “Leaving “Higher Education” has offered a great opportunity to learn and attain some marketable skills. I only regret there being one less person in the halls of academia to challenge the status quo.”

    Edward- this sentiment only indicates to me that you are a sane person. Challenging the “status quo” in modern academia is a fool’s errand akin to challenging the archaic , yet still required internment (sorry, I mean “internship” 🙂 ) required to become a practicing Physician in today’s world.

    The world is upside down. In a practical, logical, and technical sense- we today know FAR more than our parents do, and we are applying constant technological advances that are growing this knowledge curve at a rate that is nearly parabolic.

    Conversely, it is ironic that none of us are nearly as wise as our grandparents.

    I applaud you for abandoning your indoctrination into a corrupt system so that you may intellectually explore what stimulates you without the restraint of beauracratic authoritarianism hanging over your head.

    I have no doubts that you will be far more successful in life as a consequence of this decision, but I would remind you that knowledge comes about through the marriage of intelligence (inborn capacity to learn) and experience (pratical application of things learned), while wisdom can only be achieved via introspective examination of how effectively we use our knowledge to achieve a general betterment of ourselves, and those around us…

    Enjoy the ride, but take time periodically to reflect on the poor souls who are taking the words and philosophies of your former Professors as gospel and eagerly wish to live their lives on the bandwagon of intellectual regression.

    Consider the famous last words of another famous “rebel” who lived his short life challenging the status quo and encouraging others to abondon the dogma of systemic existence:

    “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do…”

    • Benjamin July 1, 2011, 10:46 pm

      “Challenging the “status quo” in modern academia is a fool’s errand akin to challenging the archaic , yet still required internment (sorry, I mean “internship” ) required to become a practicing Physician in today’s world.”

      If you’re still around and feel like answering an idle question, Robert, I’m curious as to why you think it archaic.

    • Robert July 2, 2011, 12:19 am

      Benjamin-

      It is archaic (or perhaps antiquated is a better adjective?) because the person serving in the “Mentor” role is often less technologically (or intellectually) advantaged than the person who is supposed to be gaining enlightenment into how the “real world” works.

      In other words- The young doctor who understands the technology behind today’s ultra-modern imaging systems is much better equipped to use these tools as a diagnostic aid, and yet this same young, ambitious doctor will never be licensed to practice unless he/she relents to the “superior judgement” of a more “experienced” doctor who may not be able to distinguish the difference between the imagery on the screen and a game of Tetris.

      The end result is that young, talented (possibly even gifted) prognosticators are not able to advance at the rate they are capable of, and instead have their personal progress supressed by the politics of an industry that is still being run by people with nearly obsolescent skillsets. The result is dissillusionment for many young professionals; which ultimately leads to cynicism, indifference, or even abandonment of their chosen career field.

      Economically speaking, this is waste in its purest form.

      And it is not only the medical profession- financial services, manufacturing, you name it- they are all being run by people who fear the efficient capabilities of the younger people that they “manage”.

      It is a premise as old as time- I can see that you are superior to me, so I will assuage my fear/envy/intimidation of you by leveraging my perceived (or positional) authority over you and will expend my energy in an effort to retard your advancement, rather than rising to meet you on a level playing field.

    • Benjamin July 2, 2011, 3:14 am

      Robert,

      Thanks. That was a more interesting answer than I thought it would be!

  • Rich July 1, 2011, 7:13 pm

    One more for the long weekend~

    Jeffrey Folks: The Fiscal Dance of Death mentions Krugman:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/07/the_fiscal_dance_of_death.html

  • Rich July 1, 2011, 6:31 pm

    Before Krugman’s Keynesian ECon text was Keynesian Samuelson, Nobel Prize uncle of Harvard President, Treasury Secretary and Hedge Fund Presidential Economic Adviser Larry Summers.
    Right up to the fall of the Berlin Wall, Samuelson insisted the command economy was superior to free markets.
    Some still believed that re Japan and China.
    Re this market, Big Cap Bear BGZ at 33 targeting 57:
    http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/gallery.html?s=bgz
    Happy Financial Independence Day All…

  • mario cavolo July 1, 2011, 6:10 pm

    S&P daily & weekly chart and indicator- wise Rick, the wild thrust looks quite like the previous strong daily/weekly thrusts at 7/12/09, 7/04/10, 8/24/10 and 8/29/10, 11/28/10 ….which means a slow, surprising grind higher through the summer…but w/o QE2?…how?….I guess by the decline of crude and commodities making everyone feel so much better, making Bernanke look like the hero as he said that Fed policies had nothing to do with the rise in them…the game goes on…

  • Phil C July 1, 2011, 4:51 pm

    It shows how people are so “attached” to this view.
    I posted your article above on a forum on a thread about “how the US is screwed” and get the “moron” treatment:
    http://www.theeestory.com/posts/197036

    Hey.

    • Steve July 1, 2011, 5:40 pm

      Phil, it is tough to deal will delusional corporate enfranchisees who believe there is nothing Wrong, and there is nothing Right – Ya ! Take on the stiff upper lip and keep walking away from the delusional.

    • Phil C July 1, 2011, 6:15 pm

      You are very right Steve, they are stuck in their believes. Thanks.

  • buck novak July 1, 2011, 4:23 pm

    Hitler may have had a point in burning books. It appears to me burning books is going to make a comeback.

  • martin snell July 1, 2011, 1:16 pm

    How quickly we forget. Let’s remember that the whole mess began with with Reagan’s guys saying “deficits don’t matter”. There was also the nutty idea that by cutting taxes, revenues would be increased – rightly called by some “voodoo economics”.

    Meanwhile economies that somewhat followed Keynes (save up in good times so as to have stores in reserves for bad) as did Canada, have suffered less in the recession – oh and by the way Canada also regulates the crap out of its banks – and guess what, it has healthier banks (stopped by government from doing stupid things to themselves – who could have thunk it).

    The biggest problem in traditional economics is in the basic assumptions (rationality and equilibrium) which from day 1 in my first eco 101 course I thought were bunk, and are now realized my most to be so. Economics is simply not, and can never be, a science.

    • John July 1, 2011, 3:24 pm

      “Let’s remember that the whole mess began with with Reagan’s guys saying “deficits don’t matter”.This mess began in 1980 ? Really so the beginning of the “Mother of all bull markets a 20 year run was the beginning” ? Martin Reagan’s policies were clearly Keynesian not sure what you are talking about. The US has clearly been all out Keynesian for many decades . To say Canada has “somewhat followed” and is better off than the US doesn’t make any sense. Are you implying we have been following some other model than Keynes ? Love to know what our real philosophy is so maybe we can correct it ,because what we are doing now isn’t working . I’ve been under the delusion that Greenspan and Bernanke were Keynesians.

    • Larry D July 1, 2011, 5:34 pm

      How quickly we forget. If you insist on pegging the whole mess on a solitary president in history, please add FDR and LBJ to the alphabet soup of deficit spenders.

      And it wasn’t that Canadian banks were stopped by the government from doing stupid things to themselves …they were not pressed by the government into doing stupid things to themselves.

    • Steve July 1, 2011, 5:38 pm

      Martin – I disagree. It all started when the U.S. Senate went into Rebellion against Article II, sec. 2 Presidental Pardon and began to practice corporatism actively working to enslave through corporate enfranchisement.

    • martin snell July 1, 2011, 6:34 pm

      Larry D.

      The government stopped bank mergers, remember that? The Minister of Finance has a lot of power official and unofficial in that regard (sometimes he just goes and has a chat with them).

      The government (until the Conservatives got in and started screwing things up) kept tight limits on mortgages (required down payments etc)

      John:
      How is deficit spending in good times Keynesian?

      Yes, it really got going with Reagan. (The hell with limits on America) By letting loose debt and applying leverage we got a great bull market. Now we get the hangover. Suddenly it turns out “deficits DO matter”. The whole idea of cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes (and not touching spending) with the idea that somehow you will get more revenue has proven to truly be “voodoo economics”.

    • John July 1, 2011, 7:10 pm

      Martin is deficit spending in good times an Austrian philosophy ? I must have missed that chapter in my reading. Not sure how old you are but anyone that was around will tell you the years leading up to when Reagen took office the late 70’s were clearly not “good times”. Maybe Keynes might object but it would fall on deaf ears by his current disciples. Funny thing is Krugman doesn’t think deficits matter either. So you have Krugman and Reagan in agreement .Yet von Mises would disagree.At no time in my life or my fathers life (he’s 81 ) has there ever been an Austrian in charge of our economy, yet you want to blame them ? This mess was a direct result of government intervention in the once free market. With Ben Bernanke as the maestro. What’s your next point ? He’s not really a Keynesian?
      LOL !
      @ Larry you might as well throw Wilson in there he’s the one that got this whole ball of dung rolling.

  • mario cavolo July 1, 2011, 7:26 am

    Regardless of your particular views, pointing up college students being misguided by university professors on such macro subjects is unfortunate. Its also a version of “the winners are the ones who write the history books”, eh?

    There are few subjects within which one finds in America at the government, media and private sector level, any greater misinformation, disinformation, distortion and bias than on the subject of China.

    Considering how incredibly significant the rise of Asia led by China is, with respect to its impact on the rest of the world staring with America; it is a very unfortunate circumstance which persists unabated.

    • Marilyn July 1, 2011, 7:53 am

      Okay, Mario, so the mis-teaching of economics at the college levels is unfortunate and and the coverage of China is distorted and biased. and, ultimately, China will take on a significant role, leading Asia and so we need concern ourselves with the Chinese.

      Okay, that sounds good me. But, what’s in it for me, or any of us?

    • Marilyn July 1, 2011, 8:24 am

      And how do we actually behave in order to avail ourselves of opportunities in Asia/China?

    • Benjamin July 1, 2011, 9:04 am

      I’m a bit flustered by Mario’s comments as well, but in all fairness I don’t think he means to defend modern academe. At least, I hope not!

      Whatever the case, I also wonder what’s in China for us. More to the point, why does appeal of capitalism have to trump the appeal of Liberty? Because it is “American” to do so? Because China will inevitably sweep aside all such archaic concerns in its leviathan-like rise?

      Inquiring minds wanna know!

    • mario cavolo July 1, 2011, 10:53 am

      Hi Marilyn, Benjamin!

      Yes Ben, I was definitely not defending, I was agreeing with the author. My comment’s intent is supportive of the author’s point, getting wrong or distorted information on any subject is undesirable and I was just noting / comparing that China is a primary subject in America of egregious misinformation and distortion.

      Onward to Marilyn’s excellent question… So now what? WIIFM? How does it matter across the globe and how might any individual benefit? I’ve come up with a few answers right away, some easy, some not, to execute.

      1. Move On – If you are now a person as Europeans were 100 years ago who has financial / employment / lifestyle challenges and so needs to leave your home country of America seeking new opportunity, living in China and a few other spots in Asia will take the pressure off financially… you can live comfortable here on $800 a month and find a job that will pay you $15-$40 / hour cash teaching English as a base , as you explore other opportunities. Of course you must have a decent communicative personality to do so and I am not saying this choice is a cakewalk, perfect, ideal…it is a reasonable consideration to make a change when the best you can do is min wage at 7-11 or worse, can’t find any job. When your tooth hurts, the dentist will give you a full root canal for $100 and when you break your leg or get a brain tumor, you can go the hospital and get an MRI for $150. You get the point, many many expenses are far lower here and you do NOT need a car…taxis are cheap, subways and busses and bicycles even cheaper, so its a way to start over with less pressure, for those who can consider this option.

      2. Convert Your Cash to RMB – Investments – Its weird how Americans in America regularly IGNORE my pleas to them put some of their cash in RMB, like RMB has a secret dangerous cancer agent possibly attached to it. 600,000 Americans live in China, our money is in RMB. Do you think we want our money in USD? Bank of China and ICBC accounts are multi-currency, so we can easily convert our balances to USD, but we don’t. Asia’s growth led by China means putting some of your cash in Asian currency to PROTECT it, such as SGD or RMB…two very good choices to diversify your cash, which can be done via 1) RMB etf, 2) open an overseas acct in HK with HSBC (easier to do than you think) and 3) ICBC branch in New York.

      3. Real Estate Investment – If you have money to invest, buy a 800 sq ft apartment in China in a 2nd tier city – this will cost USD $60 – $80 per square foot. That’s USD $60k. No annual property taxes. It will sit as a concrete shell. It will appreciate. Decorate it later at a cost of $10k, rent it out or sell it. Your kitchen cabinet/counter/stove/exhaust decoration will cost $1500 total!, compare that to $10k back in the states.

      4. There are 100 million newly filthy rich, debt free Chinese. Find something they are buying, need, want, to sell to them…they are roaming the earth looking to buy new things they could never get their hands on before AND didn’t have the money before!…consider a human being in that position and figure out what they will spend their money on. For example, the cruise ships…RCCL, Costa… Americans pay $800 for a 7 day cruise, Asian customers pay twice that and spend far more money while on holiday than Europeans and Americans. Figure it out.

      5. Marilyn, you’re in film production I believe. Film industry quality is rising, promotion of locations here to shoot. Production companies come from all over the APAC region to shoot in Shanghai to save huge amounts on production costs for clients.

      6. Have a business that needs investors? Chinese rich people are looking for EB-1 and EB-5 investments in America and Canada, to set up residency benefits there. There are portals/law firms which can be contacted…

      7. USE the Benefits of Your American Government That Your Taxes Pay For! The U.S. Consulate Foreign Commercial Service exists to support and promote American business abroad! They will introduce you to business partners, local referrals, support services and related products that you need and want in countries abroad, tell you who, how and what to avoid. You’re not so much on your own. Many of such services are free. When I arrived in Chengdu in 1999, the U.S. Consulate FCO arranged meetings for me to meet with local Chinese companies who wanted my services. THEY were my FREE marketing office making appts for me to help me as an American company establish business in China. Your taxpayer dollars at work, many services for free, some at additional cost.

      8. Marilyn, referring to your great “back to the land” farming article. More exiting the mainstream society to simple, dirt cheap, country living; so much more possible here than there in 2nd and 3rd tier cities in China/Asia – offer a person a simple, dirt cheap, countryside lifestyle which is very close to the lifestyle of farming. Living in a smaller city/village/buying local farm veggies…one would find other kinds of work besides teaching, as a foreigner in such a place, many of the locals are thrilled you are there and supportive to make your life work better, where your nice 1200sq ft 3 bedroom apt rents for $300/month.

      That’s all that came off the top of my head.

      Cheers, Mario

    • mario cavolo July 1, 2011, 11:07 am

      Please allow me to rewrite my poorly worded line “pointing up college students being misguided by university professors on such macro subjects is unfortunate.”

      I definitely meant “Thank you for pointing up that this problem exists, it is unfortunate to learn from your article that this is happening. Living in China, I notice that there is also far too much misinformation and distortion of reality in America about China.”

      Thank you gang…!

    • Robert July 1, 2011, 9:20 pm

      “Considering how incredibly significant the rise of Asia led by China is, with respect to its impact on the rest of the world staring with America; it is a very unfortunate circumstance which persists unabated.”

      Unfortunate to you, perhaps Mario…

      To me, simply another testament to how effectively prejudice and intellectual bias corrupt the attainment of wisdom…

      The Asians understand Yin-Yang. This is their greatest intellectual advantage. I agree with you that the Chinese have no desire to rule the world. In fact, it seems that the most corrupt among the Asians are those who are the most “west-leaning” in their personal attitudes and outlooks- it is only via smoke in mirrors that they should be labeled “Communists”

      Cheers.

    • Benjamin July 1, 2011, 10:33 pm

      Mario,

      Sorry about the late reply, but I was quite occupied (see blow) with thinking about how to respond to your points.

      For all the detail of your response, you still didn’t answer my questions, which basically come down to why Americans should focus on China, when we have plenty of our own problems, wants, and needs to attend to (and for the record, why should China ever have focused on us? It’s a two-way street I present here).

      Your answer was that they’re rich and most desperately looking for stuff to splurge on. Among other objections, I find this quite odd. If they are so loaded, then why not buy more of their own real estate? Why not buy more of their own manufactured goods, which they now have a great capacity to produce? I don’t understand. Is their own real estate and production not good enough for all that money that they’re practically ready to throw at anything just to be rid of it?

      I guess I’m just never going to understand China. But rather than make sense out of it, I would ask these rich folks what I would ask the Americans who figured that we don’t have enough rich people here already (and thus cater to the Chinese with too much money). What do we “need” of each other, that each nation cannot provide for themeslves, in Independence and Liberty?

      I’ve thought about this all morning and afternoon. And I just can’t see that any nation needs to be dependent on another. Even resources and/or know-how don’t seem to fall outside of what a nation can independently provide for itself. It would be a very strange Earth if that were not so!

      Anyway, that is only thing all people need, but it is not something one people can give to another, in any capacity. It can’t be produced, traded, or imported/ exported. And that is the establishment of an independent nation.

    • mario cavolo July 2, 2011, 2:17 am

      Greatly appreciate your approach and thoughts Ben, thanks! ….responding to a couple of them:

      As to why Americans should focus on China… well I don’t expect they should! We’re having a semantic argument. I don’t think they “should” “focus”…I think they, as everyone, should be mindful of what’s happening in the context of today’s world and how it impacts their lives and how they might be able to respond for their own good and that the broad dual geopolitical theme of what’s happening in the world today is “The rise of Asia Led by China along with the deterioration of the American middle class who have been fleeced and stripped by the elite bankers and govt leaders of their country.”

      Strictly over the past 15 years, we have all watched western government become a self-serving impotent system feeding on its own greed that is far from being “of the people, by the people, for the people” while at the same time we have watched the Chinese govt do an exemplary job of improving their country. History books will remember 1990 to 2020 with these broadly impactful characterizations;

      – the transformation of the world by computers/internet/cloud/smartphones/tablets
      – the fleecing and destruction of the American middle class, America’s demise by its govt/banking elites, paralyzed, impotent, gridlocked self-serving govt.
      – American and European sovereign debt insolvency threatening the very core of the world’s financial system
      – the economic and societal rise of Asia led by China, much a result of America’s missteps not taking care of her own citizen’s and societal interests very well, but govt and big corps selling out to profits.

      As to your “Chinese buying more of their own real estate? Why not buy more of their own manufactured goods, which they now have a great capacity to produce?” You’ve placed assumption in your question. Who suggested they aren’t ? They are. Domestic consumption is up 30% per year for the past five years. Chinese possess more “stuff” and real estate than ever before in modern history, etc. Its just that relative to the past 80 years, this is the first time that a citizenry of 300 million people for the first time in their lives had both oodles of money and the freedom to go out and spend it across much of the world, to experience and be part of a much bigger place.

      Making an effort to tie the thread back to the theme of today’s article, let’s appreciate Edward for helping all of us including the new Chinese, who are now more than ever able to go out into the world’s foreign universities to get educated, to realize that they need to be mindful of what they are being taught, that the knowledge poured down their throat may indeed be biased, distorted, even incorrect even though it comes from a respected university professor. In China’s education system, teachers are blindly worshiped and followed and their system needs much improvement in that respect which is happening slowly; more creativity; innovation; discussion; debate, relatively great hallmarks of American education lacking here. On the other hand, its pragmatic discipline is it’s strength.

      Cheers, Mario

  • Benjamin July 1, 2011, 6:03 am

    The Peter Thail article was a very thought-provoking piece. Unfortunately, the final point made in the article is a “bit” off, in that the critical ones with megaphones won’t make so much noise as to see this experiment reported in the MSM (I just learned about it today!). It’s the new way of things. Whatever it is that doesn’t fit, it is simply ignored by the media. I’m sure that in time, though, it will become a much talked about (screamed, actually) issue. But, again unfortunately, I realize this won’t happen until maximum damage is done, where degreed “kids”, oldest to youngest, are still at home, up to their scalps in debts that they simply cannot repay, with that fate being their far foreseeable future.

    Enough of the negatives, though. Here is another possible solution for that problem…

    I refer readers to Article I sec 8 of the United States Constitution. More specifically to clause 15 and 16. If Congress was doing its job, we could expect a need for people (college educated or not) to fill in for those called to serve in the militia. A great many benefits can come about from doing this, all of which can be summed up by the effect of diversion in the domestic market that providing militias would have. One result of that effect would be a reduction in the cost of education, due to the diversion presenting competition for dollars. And since education is in a bubble, in a broader sense, one could say that spectulative bubbles themselves would be less likely to occur, and then less likely to sustain.

    If we only had such a dutiful Congress! Fat chance that the current one will ever do such a thing, though. Right?

    More than likely they would laugh at such a suggestion. Then, among citizens in general, there would probably be the knee-jerk hesitance/rejection of “using violence” to solve problems. But if enough people remind Congress that revolutionary tensions/forces are going to build anyway, but that Congress has the lawful power to take control of and direct them, we would not have to worry that everything would perish to violent and unchecked revolts. But even if the current Congress will not listen, at the very least, frequent mention in freedom-oriented circles might influence future Congressmen and women to seriously consider the constitutionality and economic soundness of militia service.

    • Robert July 2, 2011, 12:38 am

      “If we only had such a dutiful Congress! Fat chance that the current one will ever do such a thing, though. Right? ”

      – Ahhhh – Another proxy argument in favor of the philosophies of Ron Paul- the only member of Congress who bases his votes exclusively within the context of the powers enumerated to him by the Constitution….

  • Jill July 1, 2011, 3:33 am

    I hope we can avoid incendiary labels here. Interesting questions though, in light of the quoted part of the article– 1) Is the given explanation true? 2) Is it good or bad for the U.S. for the troops to be there doing what they are doing? and 3) And is this a realistic and acheivable goal– to strangle Taliban infiltration into the capital of Kabul?

    • Marx Smith July 1, 2011, 6:33 am

      Note how I mentioned in “some circles”. I wouldn’t do such a thing.

      To respond to your questions:
      1) Why would the explanation be false? It seems to lie in accordance with the stated objectives of the mission of troops being in Afghanistan.
      2 and 3) Does it matter? They’re there and doing it.

    • Steve July 1, 2011, 5:34 pm

      The game is – does the U.S. Constitution empower police actions in other nations? Answer – No !

      There hasn’t been a Congressional Declaration of War since Dec. 7th 1941 – WHY ?

      The War Powers Act of 1917 is re-upped every other year – WHY?

      All federal law is under the Commerce Clause, or the powers of the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 – WHY?

      Under a police action is the Commander in Chief guilty of War Crimes if he violates the Coventions of War by extra-judicial killing – YES !

      Is the President of the united States prohibited from exercising foreign police power, or exercising police powers in foreign lands – YES!

      Can the C.E.O. Obama exercise unlimited powers within the corporate charter defined by 28 U.S.C. 3002(15) – YES !

      Just because foreign murders by Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama are unpunished does not mean they are not murder. Some 80 years ago murder went unpunished in Germany.

      The only hope for Freedom is that criminal trials begin, even if it takes 70 years to bring the complaints and find a court of justice much like those against the acts in Germany.

  • Marx Smith July 1, 2011, 3:24 am

    John Jay, what exactly is your point in posting that web link? If an American corporation decided to do the same thing (dump $3 billion into an incredibly risky investment), then they would have been allowed to, as well.

    Such a risk is something that can only be backed up with taxpayer support.

    In regards to US troops providing security for the Chinese project, that’s addressed in the third paragraph:

    “The U.S. deployment wasn’t intended to protect the Chinese investment — the largest in Afghanistan’s history — but to strangle Taliban infiltration into the capital of Kabul. But if the mission provides the security that a project to revive Afghanistan’s economy needs, the synergy will be welcome.”

    Would you prefer we not pursue our military mission simply because we may also be helping a foreign operation which may provide economic stability in Afghanistan? In some circles, that could get you labeled a terrorist, John.

    • John Jay July 1, 2011, 2:27 pm

      Marx Smith,
      1) We are bankrupt and borrowing $.43 for every dollar we spend in Afghanistan.
      2) China is not our friend by any stretch of the imagination.
      3) Our “military mission” is very likely opposed by the majority of the electorate, and Afghanistan, like Vietnam before it is a lost cause.
      4) I post any article I think will support my macro economic view that we are on the path to financial implosion.
      5) I think the Bill of Rights will let me express my opposition to suicidal government policies, and the fact that you think I might be suspected of terrorism by the government for speaking up shows how far we have already fallen.

    • John July 1, 2011, 2:49 pm

      Another nut job exposed.

    • John July 1, 2011, 3:10 pm

      Not you John

    • mario cavolo July 1, 2011, 5:45 pm

      on 2) amen….they have no interest in becoming a world leader…they just want to build up China for China for as much of their own overall advantage in the game of accumulation and power as possible. With that harshly stated, the Chinese govt is in the current decade, eons ahead in terms of productivity, progress, improving society compared to the U.S. in which now govt is truly, sadly impotent and beholden to, as Michael Moore puts its, a tight group of about 400 guys….not that I zealously follow him or any other talking head…

  • Jill July 1, 2011, 3:10 am

    Edward, you make some good points. You sound like a bright young man, and I expect you will go far. I hope that you will one day be able to get beyond the black/white thinking that is so common in our culture. E.g. maybe you might notice something that Krugman said that was right, and something that Von Mises Institute folks said that was a little off.

    To say that Krugman is responsible for the housing bubble is quite off. While it’s quite possible that it was a mistake to lower interest rates, to say that the entire cause of the housing bubble was Krugman’s being in favor of lowering them, is very far off from reality– just as far off as saying that Chinese speculators caused it, really.

    In fact one can make a good case for the housing bubble being caused in part by lack of government regulation of the mortgage industry, leading to their granting of no-doc loans, and to lack of regulation of the TBTF banks and rating agencies, leading to their being able to sell packages of bad mortgages to one institution after another, and to get the crummy mortgage packages rated as AAA. I have no doubt that pressure on FNM and FRE to give loans to people who would obviously not be able to repay them was also a factor. The real world has no political ideology. Some, but not all, of the facts routinely chosen to support each ideology are entirely true. All ideologies have some holes in them.

    You may one day be able to see that a big problem in this country is due to politics being too much like religion here. People decide on their political beliefs and then defend them, choosing and interpreting facts in such a way as to support the ideology and to try to convert others to it. E.g. one may believe that Von Mises is perfect like a god and Krugman is the devil. Or vice versa. The world is far more complicated than that. And problem solving is mostly likely to occur when people listen to each other’s proposed suggestions for solving problems, without having an ideological religion that they defend to the death.

    • John July 1, 2011, 3:05 pm

      Jill you say “maybe you might notice something that Krugman said that was right, and something that Von Mises Institute folks said that was a little off.” Then you leave us hanging for what that actually was ? Nothing. Krugman wasn’t “the cause” QB no but cheerleader all the way.
      Lack of regulation ? The Bush admin. was the most highly regulated admin. ever. Try this for black and white.
      Read this quote from Paul Krugman “To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble”. Aug. 2, 2002. Okay Paul you got the housing bubble you were looking for.The guy has been wrong time and time again.How anyone still listens to a word he says is beyond me.
      If Krugman were just another academic spouting off it would be benign enough. The problem is the powers that be Greenspan and Bernake subscribe to the same silly notions as Krugman. First you have an executive branch Clinton then Bush encouraging home ownership for one and all.Weather they can afford it or not.You have the Fed to accommodate with artificially low interest rates well below any reasonable rate of return.Then you get the GSE’s Fannie and Freddie to pump through all the liar loans , no money down ,no income verification. Thus the housing bubble is born and the sub prime market that went along with it. So Fannie and Freddie are sitting on mountains of future toxic assets. So they go to yield starved(no real return, due to the absurdly low rates) banks, pensions and retirees to dump this stuff on and everyone gets screwed. Banks tumble the stock market follows and so does real estate. Oy vey ! They say” no one saw this coming”.How about this quote ?

      “Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing”. Ron Paul Sept 10 2003

      Paul warned about the danger of bubbles while Krugman was campaigning for their creation. Paul, an adherent of the Austrian School, believes there is no such thing as a free lunch. Krugman, the quintessential Keynesian, argues that there is. One guy was totally wrong and was recognized by the Nobel staff while the one who was correct was marginalized by his own party and had trouble even getting in the debates.Good times ,eh ?

      Black and white no gray,plain as day. It’s not that “complicated” as you would like. Krugman wrong ,Dr.Paul right . See not so complicated.

    • Steve July 1, 2011, 5:21 pm

      Jill, grey thinking is the system of abuses that denies the Immutable Law, ie; the Laws of Nature and Natures God. Liberal thinking is a corporate enfrachisee saying the Laws of Nature are now void because I can suspend myself in the air with a string, therefore gravity does not exist. As John Marshall opined in debate:

      You loose. If you do not believe in the Immutable Law you will change the rules and change the rules until all shall loose.

      That is our course Jill because democracy always ends in anarchy and terror at the hands of despots – a mere 535 congressmen + 1 commander in chief, and 1 vice-delusional, in the instant abuses of Libery by mobocracy. Clinton is pushing mobocracy worldwide which will only lead to global destruction.

    • Robert July 1, 2011, 9:10 pm

      “You may one day be able to see that a big problem in this country is due to politics being too much like religion here. People decide on their political beliefs and then defend them, choosing and interpreting facts in such a way as to support the ideology and to try to convert others to it. E.g. one may believe that Von Mises is perfect like a god and Krugman is the devil. Or vice versa. The world is far more complicated than that. And problem solving is mostly likely to occur when people listen to each other’s proposed suggestions for solving problems, without having an ideological religion that they defend to the death.”

      -I like the way you think, Jill.

      Bias and prejudice seem to be inborn side-kicks to intelligence….a real shame, that.

    • fallingman July 1, 2011, 9:20 pm

      Where do you get off lecturing this kid in this condescending tone of voice? “You may one day be able to”…blah blah blah. As if you have the first glimmer of a clue.

      Don’t listen to her Edward. You’re on the right track. Mainstream economists, especially the academics, are incompetents and charlatans. She’s a statist…a firm believer in government intervention, and she’s trying to douse your fire. Screw that.

      Jill, you may one day be able to find your hindquarters with both hands, but I’m not gonna hold my breath.

      And thanks to John for his excellent comments. Note that he didn’t say Ron Paul is godlike and perfect and Krugman is the devil. He DEMONSTRATED that Krugman was wrong and Dr. Paul was right. “No so complicated” indeed.

    • gary leibowitz July 2, 2011, 6:17 pm

      Jill, your analytical skills could not be any better. While my use of language is lacking to express myself, I make my livelihood by using my analytical skills to develop system program application. The idea that low interest rates caused this mess is absurd. The glaring facts that government restrictions were either ignored or repealed is very hard to dispute. The ever increased influence and control by industry and the wealthy few is also indisputable. It’s not a coincidence that both happened at the same time. All boom/bust cycles in a capitalistic society have the same pattern. This one is no different.

      You are the Don Quixote of this message board. I am your soul mate however and believe your fight is a just one and should be told no matter how irritated entrenched minds become. Keep up the good fight and perhaps you can dislodge some of the cemented views here.

  • Marx Smith July 1, 2011, 2:29 am

    “Krugman frames the issue as a “market failure” despite public roads being as divorced from the market price system as a Soviet bread line.”

    That’s the whole point. Public roads are a result of a failure in the market. They wouldn’t exist in a free market. Therefore, government intervention improved efficiency by creating public roads.

    Could you imagine a functioning commerce, especially inter-state commerce, in a society without roads? The fact of the matter is that no person or industry is altruistic enough to cough up the dough to build and maintain them, and charging a toll on all roads would cause a significant failure in the efficiency of the market.

    • John Jay July 1, 2011, 3:08 am

      Exactly. And if the US Army did not supply security gratis to Chinese copper miners in Afghanistan, who else would? http://tinyurl.com/3vs2hmq
      You can’t make this stuff up, right out of a Monty Python skit for sure. Great for our troop’s morale, no doubt.

    • Benjamin July 1, 2011, 6:43 am

      Without government intervention, private routes (ie not postal/military) would naturally establish themelves, without trampling on anyones property rights, as it is human nature for people to organize themselves around each other. This is evidenced by the observation that if I see you standing there, I won’t try to stand in the same exact spot!

      As to the paying for private routes, that is handled by the mechanism of pricing. As a former trucker, I know that industry and commerce likes the increase in freight volume and timely delivery that paved and properly engineered roads allow them. All they would have to do to pay for that, in abesnece of govt funding, is slightly increase the price of what they produce and sell. But I also know that they are more than happy to receive a “free lunch” of government-funded roads (even if that means federalzing the funding for them so that federal government can use that funding to manipulate states into doing whatever a tryannical federation wants).

      I know which scenario I’d rather live and work under. And for the record, I’m a _former_ trucker precisely because of the rising fuel costs, what is in large part accounted for by rising fuel taxes over the years. Apply that reasoning to the availability of roads; there will only be fewer of them in the future if government continues to fund them!

    • John July 1, 2011, 2:45 pm

      “Could you imagine a functioning commerce, especially inter-state commerce, in a society without roads’?

      What a load of rubbish. Roads were in existence long before the federal government even existed. Who do you think built our railway system ? Private industry. Altruism has nothing to do with it. BTW we still have tolls all over the place in the N.East. If they were private they would be a lot cheaper.

    • Larry D July 1, 2011, 5:06 pm

      Pennsylvania Turnpike, inaugurated 1940. Precursor to the interstate highway network and paid for entirely by tolls, to this day. Great road, too.

      A quarter of a million railroad miles in the USA at the 1914 peak and virtual modal monopoly, and with the exception of the Alaska Railroad, all privately funded. Yes, Uncle Sam gave land away, but since land is not convertible to track, tunnels, bridges and locomotives, it served as collateral for bonds sold to finance construction. And Uncle Sam gained more than it gave with reduced freight rates for the US Mail and government freight through 2 world wars.

      Funny how plenty of people were altruistic enough to cough up the dough to build the Bell System and the US telecommunications system over the past century.

    • Steve July 1, 2011, 5:13 pm

      Public “Right of Way”, thus ‘roads’ are one of the single most important tenants of LIBERTY. Commercial business, like trucking, pay tax for doing business on the Private Individual’s public right-of-way. Need we go into a discussion about the fact that the 14th amendment allows the government to tax the operations of corporate enfranchisees by ‘gas tax’?

    • john July 1, 2011, 5:25 pm

      I can picture Adam Smith howling in his grave at the way libertarians have turned his insight into human nature – the problem of self-interest – on its head.

      Libertarians take what Smith saw as a (the?) problem to be resolved in an economy, human self-interest, and make it their foundation. Whereas Smith saw competition as a harness necessary to control self-interest, libertarians seek to free self-interest above all else. The following quote has got to be a wonderful canticle to their god – individual freedom – “Without government intervention, private routes (ie not postal/military) would naturally establish themelves, without trampling on anyones property rights, as it is human nature for people to organize themselves around each other. This is evidenced by the observation that if I see you standing there, I won’t try to stand in the same exact spot!”

      What a glorious utopia where individuals are so careful to respect property rights. It seems just one step away from even needing government to establish and protect property rights. Ain’t ideology grand!

    • Benjamin July 1, 2011, 9:26 pm

      I was gone for most the day, but I mean to get around to reading all these comments. First on the list…

      Steve July 1, 2011 at 5:13 pm: Need we go into a discussion about the fact that the 14th amendment allows the government to tax the operations of corporate enfranchisees by ‘gas tax’?

      Not “calling you out!”, Steve, but… Provided you’re citing the correct amendment, I guess we do need to discuss it, since I don’t see anything in the 14th that even remotely implies such a thing as a “gas tax”.

    • Benjamin July 1, 2011, 9:41 pm

      John: “what a glorious utopia where individuals are so careful to respect property rights.”

      It’s even more glorious when the law can make people correct honest mistakes or other cretin misdoings, such as (and not to put TOO fine a point on it) paving over your house anyway, despite government having the power of taxation and sole authority to create routes, to prevent me from doing so.

      Get it? The laws respecting private property is what matters, not a government monopoly that can tax people to provide said monopoly for them.

    • john July 2, 2011, 1:34 am

      Sorry Benjamin I don’t get it. I don’t share your apparent view of the fundamental goodness of human nature.