America’s ‘Lost Decade’ continues

Business Cycles, Statism
Share

I was looking at the new earnings data released by the BLS this morning, which shows real average income for all workers declining 0.6 percent year over year. Realistically speaking, this means that earnings are flat for people with jobs. People without jobs, who aren’t included in the survey, are likely much worse off in general.

We might also keep in mind that when making year over year comparisons, that March 2009 was just a few months after the panic of 2008, so to have had so little improvement compared to the early months of 2009 is a grim commentary indeed.

Also, when thinking about household debt, unemployment, and continued increases in the price of gasoline (which rose 15 percent over the last 6 months), household budgets in America are in extremely dire straits.

If this were only a short term phenomenon, it would be one matter, but when looking at what has happened over the past decade, the continued malaise is really just more of the same in spite of the fact that it was masked by a brief bubble in the middle of the decade.

For example, American median household income in 1998 (adjusted for inflation) was $51,295. Ten years later, in 2008, it was $50,303. Over the same period, household debt increased 139 percent.

Now come the years of de-leveraging with stagnant incomes, which will be painful.

America’s ‘Lost Decade’ continues Read Post »

I Do Not Support Peter Schiff For Senate

(Austrian) Economics, Democracy, Vulgar Politics
Share

Peter Schiff is an excellent economist and his appearances on various financial shows (and the corresponding Youtube clips and blog posts) have contributed to the economics education and financial health of thousands of people. Why on earth is he running for the Senate?  1 Does he really believe that the political process has even a remote chance of limiting the size and scope of government? Such a belief is truly absurd for two reasons:

  1. The inherent inertia of the political workings of Washington D.C. makes it nearly impossible to slow down the growth of government; actually shrinking the government from the inside borders on impossible.
  2. Even if I am wrong that it’s an impossibility to shrink government from the inside, what it would require is more than three libertarians. Were Schiff to win, and Ron Paul’s son Rand Paul to win also, that would make 3 libertarians in Congress (I’m generously calling Rand a libertarian, mind you) vs 532 socialists of varying degrees; worse, their forces would be split, as Schiff and Rand would be in the Senate (2 vs 98) and Ron would be in the House (1 vs 434). You’ve got to be kidding me.

I’d prefer to see Schiff save his money and that of all the people who would donate to his campaign (freedom-lovers) so they can use it to brace for the impact of this onsetting depression. Tossing so much into the political advertising money pit is a total waste. That’s an enormous amount to spend ($30 Million or so?) in the hopes that Peter can get elected and make great speeches on CSPAN, given that he already gets invited to speak on the financial circuit with little or no out-of-pocket expense on his part. In fact, Schiff has already had to cease appearing twice per week on one of the financial shows due to campaign laws, so now we’re back to all Keynes all the time. And even if he were to win, it’s doubtful the Republican leadership would seat Schiff on any of the important financial committees, so what would he really accomplish in the Senate? Maybe introduce a few bills which never make it out of committee?

Worst of all, I fear Schiff doesn’t really have a shot of winning since libertarianism doesn’t really resonate with the masses (yet), so all of that time and money campaigning will likely be wasted. (Yes, I know I just made an objective truth claim about others’ subjective evaluations which is an Austrian no-no.)


  1. Schiff’s campaign website has been taken down. 

I Do Not Support Peter Schiff For Senate Read Post »

Boettke Receives 2010 Adam Smith Award

(Austrian) Economics
Share

APEE LogoCongratulations to Professor Peter Boettke on receiving the 2010 Adam Smith Award from the Association of Private Enterprise Education (APEE). Teaching economic literacy and the principles of liberty is absolutely essential to making progress in the fight against the state. Professor Boettke is to be commended for his tireless efforts in this regard.

Boettke Receives 2010 Adam Smith Award Read Post »

Capitalism is the Greatest Achievement of Human History — Praise It

(Austrian) Economics
Share

I am grateful that we have capitalism to the extent that we in fact do have it — and although we certainly don’t have enough capitalism, I am grateful for how much we actually do have. Everything we have in the modern civilized world is only possible due to capitalism and the accumulation of capital. It is the natural expression of free markets whenever there is a sufficient level of civilization. The accumulation of capital is essential for the progress of civilization in all aspects. Technological progress alone is insufficient. While capital accumulation has occurred to various extents throughout history, the system of capitalism is a more recent development allowing for much more efficient capital accumulation and development.

It is actually quite incredible to think of how much prior civilization, technological progress, and accumulated capital are necessary to make something as simple as a screw. Even with the instructions and all relevant knowledge, primitive people wouldn’t be able to make them for at least decades, possibly centuries. When you think about the precise dimensions of something as simple as a screw, you realize it obviously required something very precise to make it (e.g., precise casting). And that thing required something precise to make it, and so-on and so-forth. It is a process of building up more and more sophisticated tools from simpler ones, which requires significant capital accumulation.

It is also doubtful that many people, if any, know the entire production process — from raw earth materials to finished product — for even something as simple as a screw. Its production requires the voluntarily cooperative interactions of numerous people. Furthermore, as my friend Juan Fernando Carpio has argued in a forthcoming paper, the human mind and body are both capital goods, which require development. The entirety of human knowledge, considered in the abstract, is akin to the accumulation of capital goods. To the extent that we have civilization, such is only possible because of the accumulation of different kinds of capital.

This is something ignored by socialists of every variety, be they anarchist or Statist socialists. (I would argue that an anarchist socialist will, when faced with the reality of how free people actually act, either have to at least tacitly endorse private property and capitalism, or will become a Statist). The various systems advocated by socialist anarchists all hinder or make impossible capital accumulation. For example, various flavors of anarchist socialism might attempt to ban — how can they do this while remaining anarchist? — absentee ownership or the separation of ownership and control (i.e., corporations). The banning of either would result in rising time-preferences and thus greatly decrease incentives for saving and capital accumulation.

Some Suggested Readings

Ludwig von Mises, 2008 [1956]. The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality. Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, AL.
Reisman, George. 2002. “Some Fundamental Insights Into the Benevolent Nature of Capitalism“. Mises Daily. October 24.
Rothbard, Murray N. 2009. “Capitalism versus Statism“. Mises Daily. September 29.
Leonard E. Read, “I, Pencil,” The Freeman, December 1958.

Capitalism is the Greatest Achievement of Human History — Praise It Read Post »

Krugman, Keynes, and the Uncited Austrians

Business Cycles
Share

Apparently, Paul Krugman has never read the work of Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek. Chortling on The New York Times blog, he yammers away in this manner:

Many of the comments to my Austrian economics post are of the form “Well, of course employment rises when investment is expanding, and falls when the investment is falling — in the first case the economy is booming while in the second it’s slumping.”

As I tried to explain, however, that’s assuming the conclusion; there’s no “of course” about it. Why do periods when the economy is investing more correspond to booms, while periods when it’s investing less correspond to slumps? That’s easy to understand in Keynesian terms — but the whole Austrian claim is that they’re an alternative to Keynesianism. Yet I have never seen a clear explanation of this central point.

There are books that deal with this by Hayek, Mises and others. Why doesn’t Krugman reference them, rather than drone on about the quality (or lack thereof) of his blog commenters?

I could, at this point, dredge up those Hayekian and Misesian pearls. But, for the moment, I feel challenged by Krugman’s apparent requirement that bloggers spin this stuff anew, so I’ll give my shot at an answer to his challenge, without referencing any of the Austrian classics. They are there for all to read. But it’s always a good experiment to see how one thinks through this on one’s feet.

Problem is, Krugman’s challenge seems fairly obvious. I need a handicap. So I’ve downed three shots of anisette, and am on my fourth. Can I answer Krugman drunk?

I think so.

Reading his post, I see that the question should be reformulated: Why is it when investment picks up, so does employment? …

Krugman, Keynes, and the Uncited Austrians Read Post »

Scroll to Top