Do Economists Agree with Obama?
Opinion Editorial by Larry Elder -
Feb 10, 2009
37 ratings from readers
Despite President Obama's claims, many economists disagree with him that what the country needs today is a government "recovery plan." One such economist is George Reisman.
“There is no
disagreement,” said then-President-elect Barack Obama Jan. 9, “that we need
action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jump-start the
economy.”
No disagreement?
During the last
economic downturn — seven years ago — I interviewed economics professor George
Reisman, author of the book Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics.
He reacted
to a newspaper article that called government spending a “potent recession cure
when administered properly.”

Reisman:
That is a view held by a large school of economists, perhaps the majority
school, for the last 60 years or so. That’s the Keynesian school, but there are
other economists, like the Austrian school, which holds a very different
position.
In their view, an essential requirement to a sound economy is
balanced budgets with small government. We want government limited to
protecting life and property.
The government should be attacking terrorists,
providing police protection against common criminals, and that should be
essentially it, and the people in an environment free from terror will proceed
to provide for themselves economically.
That has been the basic philosophy on
which the United States was built.
Elder:
I know you’re not a journalist, but isn’t it unfair to make (the “recession
cure”) statement as if it’s a fact?
Reisman:
No, it is definitely not a fact, and it displays considerable ignorance which
leaves out of account any alternative point of view, and in fact, it’s easy to
argue that deficits can pretty well worsen recessions with depression, because
one of the main characteristics of any severe recession is widespread
bankruptcies.
Deficits contribute to that by withdrawing capital from
availability for business. The deficits absorb savings, and those savings are
then not available to be lent to business firms in need of credit, so more
firms go under than would otherwise have gone under, and that worsens the
depression or recession.
Elder:
Is it too strong to say that this guy is simply wrong?
Reisman:
He’s definitely wrong. It’s not deficits in and of themselves that promote
spending, although he seems to think that a dollar spent by the government is
somehow more beneficial than a dollar spent by you or me, which is ridiculous.
What people really have in mind, to advocate this position, is that the
government will run at a deficit and not borrow from the general public but
will manufacture the money — print it. So they’ll enlarge total spending. So it’s
this mentality I would think more than anything else that’s been responsible
for our problems with inflation for the last 65 years or so.
Every year, there
is more and more money out there. The rise in spending just outstrips the
increase in production and the supply of goods, and so prices continually rise.
.
Elder:
(This article asserts) you can spend government money to get us out of a
recession.
Reisman:
That’s definitely the idea that someone would come away with, and one would
have no idea that one would have an alternative way to get out of the recession
or depression or what one got us into in the first place.
What put us into this
recession and what causes every recession is precisely a preceding policy of
inflation the tremendous stock market boom fed by the Federal Reserve’s rapid
expansion of money.
There was additional money poured into the stock market,
and that raised prices, and when they decided not to continue that then the
market fell.
It would not have had that terrible fall if it had not had this
artificial rise first, engineered by the Fed a major aspect of inflation
itself.
Elder:
The (article) quotes an economist from the so-called “non-partisan” Brookings
Institution: “Tax hikes do less damage to the economy during a downturn than an
equivalent amount of spending cuts.” What does that mean?
Reisman:
Keynesians argue that if you increase government spending by a dollar and
increase taxes by a dollar, that serves to increase national income by a
dollar. And that’s what’s being argued here.
The joke of this argument is that
the Keynesians are really very ignorant of aggregate economic accounting. It’s
actually possible that by raising taxes a dollar and government spending a
dollar, you can raise national income a dollar. But the way that would happen
is only if the taxes were paid with funds that otherwise would have bought
capital goods, like machinery and equipment.
Elder:
Why the widespread myth that FDR’s policies got us out of the Depression?
Reisman:
I think that fits with the statist preconceptions. If you view the government
as some kind of deity and you think it’s omniscient and omnipotent, then that’s
your basic expectation.

This interview took
place seven years ago. Days ago, the libertarian think tank Cato Institute took
out a full-page ad. It listed more than 200 economists — by name — who reject
more government spending and instead urge tax cuts and smaller government. The
full-pager ran in “minor” newspapers, such as The New York Times, the Los
Angeles Times and The Washington Post.
So, President Obama,
please read these economists’ “disagreement.” Whip out your BlackBerry.
Larry Elder is a syndicated radio talk-show host and the author of Showdown: Confronting Bias, Lies, and the Special Interests That Divide America. He is also host of daytime TV's "The Larry Elder Show," and enthusiastically recommends Atlas Shrugged to visitors of his web site.