APP - Misguided Monetary Mentalities - by Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Misguided Monetary Mentalities

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 11, 2009
One lesson from the Great Depression is that you should never underestimate the destructive power of bad ideas. And some of the bad ideas that helped cause the Depression have, alas, proved all too durable: in modified form, they continue to influence economic debate today.


What ideas am I talking about? The economic historian Peter Temin has argued that a key cause of the Depression was what he calls the “gold-standard mentality.” By this he means not just belief in the sacred importance of maintaining the gold value of one’s currency, but a set of associated attitudes: obsessive fear of inflation even in the face of deflation; opposition to easy credit, even when the economy desperately needs it, on the grounds that it would be somehow corrupting; assertions that even if the government can create jobs it shouldn’t, because this would only be an “artificial” recovery.
In the early 1930s this mentality led governments to raise interest rates and slash spending, despite mass unemployment, in an attempt to defend their gold reserves. And even when countries went off gold, the prevailing mentality made them reluctant to cut rates and create jobs.
But we’re past all that now. Or are we?
America isn’t about to go back on the gold standard. But a modern version of the gold standard mentality is nonetheless exerting a growing influence on our economic discourse. And this new version of a bad old idea could undermine our chances for full recovery.
Consider first the current uproar over the declining international value of the dollar.
The truth is that the falling dollar is good news. For one thing, it’s mainly the result of rising confidence: the dollar rose at the height of the financial crisis as panicked investors sought safe haven in America, and it’s falling again now that the fear is subsiding. And a lower dollar is good for U.S. exporters, helping us make the transition away from huge trade deficits to a more sustainable international position.
But if you get your opinions from, say, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, you’re told that the falling dollar is a terrible thing, a sign that the world is losing faith in America (and especially, of course, in President Obama). Something, you believe, must be done to stop the dollar’s slide. And in practice the dollar’s decline has become a stick with which conservative members of Congress beat the Federal Reserve, pressuring the Fed to scale back its efforts to support the economy.
We can only hope that the Fed stands up to this pressure. But there are worrying signs of a misguided monetary mentality within the Federal Reserve system itself.
In recent weeks there have been a number of statements from Fed officials, mainly but not only presidents of regional Federal Reserve banks, calling for an early return to tighter money, including higher interest rates. Now, people in the Federal Reserve system are normally extremely circumspect when making statements about future monetary policy, so as not to step on the efforts of the Fed’s Open Market Committee, which actually sets those rates, to shape expectations. So it’s extraordinary to see all these officials suddenly breaking the implicit rules, in effect lecturing the Open Market Committee about what it should do.
What’s even more extraordinary, however, is the idea that raising rates would make sense any time soon. After all, the unemployment rate is a horrifying 9.8 percent and still rising, while inflation is running well belowthe Fed’s long-term target. This suggests that the Fed should be in no hurry to tighten — in fact, standard policy rules of thumb suggest that interest rates should be left on hold for the next two years or more, or until the unemployment rate has fallen to around 7 percent.
Yet some Fed officials want to pull the trigger on rates much sooner. To avoid a “Great Inflation,” says Charles Plosser of the Philadelphia Fed, “we will need to act well before unemployment rates and other measures of resource utilization have returned to acceptable levels.” Jeffrey Lacker of the Richmond Fed says that rates may need to rise even if “the unemployment rate hasn’t started falling yet.”
I don’t know what analysis lies behind these itchy trigger fingers. But it probably isn’t about analysis, anyway — it’s about mentality, the sense that central banks are supposed to act tough, not provide easy credit.
And it’s crucial that we don’t let this mentality guide policy. We do seem to have avoided a second Great Depression. But giving in to a modern version of our grandfathers’ prejudices would be a very good way to ensure the next worst thing: a prolonged era of sluggish growth and very high unemployment.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Misguided Monetary Mentalities

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 11, 2009
One lesson from the Great Depression is that you should never underestimate the destructive power of bad ideas. And some of the bad ideas that helped cause the Depression have, alas, proved all too durable: in modified form, they continue to influence economic debate today.


What ideas am I talking about? The economic historian Peter Temin has argued that a key cause of the Depression was what he calls the “gold-standard mentality.” By this he means not just belief in the sacred importance of maintaining the gold value of one’s currency, but a set of associated attitudes: obsessive fear of inflation even in the face of deflation; opposition to easy credit, even when the economy desperately needs it, on the grounds that it would be somehow corrupting; assertions that even if the government can create jobs it shouldn’t, because this would only be an “artificial” recovery.
In the early 1930s this mentality led governments to raise interest rates and slash spending, despite mass unemployment, in an attempt to defend their gold reserves. And even when countries went off gold, the prevailing mentality made them reluctant to cut rates and create jobs.
But we’re past all that now. Or are we?
America isn’t about to go back on the gold standard. But a modern version of the gold standard mentality is nonetheless exerting a growing influence on our economic discourse. And this new version of a bad old idea could undermine our chances for full recovery.
Consider first the current uproar over the declining international value of the dollar.
The truth is that the falling dollar is good news. For one thing, it’s mainly the result of rising confidence: the dollar rose at the height of the financial crisis as panicked investors sought safe haven in America, and it’s falling again now that the fear is subsiding. And a lower dollar is good for U.S. exporters, helping us make the transition away from huge trade deficits to a more sustainable international position.
But if you get your opinions from, say, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, you’re told that the falling dollar is a terrible thing, a sign that the world is losing faith in America (and especially, of course, in President Obama). Something, you believe, must be done to stop the dollar’s slide. And in practice the dollar’s decline has become a stick with which conservative members of Congress beat the Federal Reserve, pressuring the Fed to scale back its efforts to support the economy.
We can only hope that the Fed stands up to this pressure. But there are worrying signs of a misguided monetary mentality within the Federal Reserve system itself.
In recent weeks there have been a number of statements from Fed officials, mainly but not only presidents of regional Federal Reserve banks, calling for an early return to tighter money, including higher interest rates. Now, people in the Federal Reserve system are normally extremely circumspect when making statements about future monetary policy, so as not to step on the efforts of the Fed’s Open Market Committee, which actually sets those rates, to shape expectations. So it’s extraordinary to see all these officials suddenly breaking the implicit rules, in effect lecturing the Open Market Committee about what it should do.
What’s even more extraordinary, however, is the idea that raising rates would make sense any time soon. After all, the unemployment rate is a horrifying 9.8 percent and still rising, while inflation is running well belowthe Fed’s long-term target. This suggests that the Fed should be in no hurry to tighten — in fact, standard policy rules of thumb suggest that interest rates should be left on hold for the next two years or more, or until the unemployment rate has fallen to around 7 percent.
Yet some Fed officials want to pull the trigger on rates much sooner. To avoid a “Great Inflation,” says Charles Plosser of the Philadelphia Fed, “we will need to act well before unemployment rates and other measures of resource utilization have returned to acceptable levels.” Jeffrey Lacker of the Richmond Fed says that rates may need to rise even if “the unemployment rate hasn’t started falling yet.”
I don’t know what analysis lies behind these itchy trigger fingers. But it probably isn’t about analysis, anyway — it’s about mentality, the sense that central banks are supposed to act tough, not provide easy credit.
And it’s crucial that we don’t let this mentality guide policy. We do seem to have avoided a second Great Depression. But giving in to a modern version of our grandfathers’ prejudices would be a very good way to ensure the next worst thing: a prolonged era of sluggish growth and very high unemployment.

Totally wrong. The depression was caused by rampant speculation and buying on margin with fiat currency.

this article is 100% propaganda.
 
Totally wrong. The depression was caused by rampant speculation and buying on margin with fiat currency.

this article is 100% propaganda.

Its all cyclical. The depression was always coming. Like a meteor towards the earth. What went wrong was that there were too many people trying to squeeze the last buck before it hit and too few people who dared criticise the lack of regulations, and the de regulation, of the greed machine.
When it hit, (very much in hindsight now) headless chickens were to be seen careering round trying to put into practice back-of-envelope solutions to save the world.
What the world realised, too late, was that Flash Gordon and Superman were fictional characters.
Injection of government money has been known to work in the past and was certain to improve matters in the short term but there was neither the time, the foresight nor the expertise to administer a certain permanent cure. If we do get that cure, and it looks as if we are all coming out (and hoping its not a W recovery) it will be as much by good luck a by good judgement.
And now JPM are giving a whopping GBP20,000,000 in bonuses!!!
One result of the upturn, which you might see around Christmas, is that Chinese manufactured goods will be more expensive and new manufacturing countries will start appearing on product labels. That should make you feel much better!
 
wait....perhaps we need to reexamine this in light of new information....did Krugman win his Nobel Prize because he wasn't somebody?.......
 
wait....perhaps we need to reexamine this in light of new information....did Krugman win his Nobel Prize because he wasn't somebody?.......

Apart from a few chosen men, who knows why anyone deserves a Nobel prize? We are told that Mr Xs book was a work of literary genius but are we in a position to 'know' that? We are told that Mrs. Ys research into cancer is worthy of the prize but how do we know she was alone in her discovery and how do we know the significance of her discovery? So, should Krugman have won the prize? Ask the committee. (There are, of course, obvious examples of deserving winners)
I only know that the likelihood of my winning the lottery and being struck by lightening at the moment I receive the cheque is more likely than my winning a Nobel prize. But then, you knew that, didn't you?
 
The Stock Market caused the Depression?
No prize for you!

The same problems that caused the Depression also tended to cause the massive recession of 1920-21. The difference is the government reaction to it (Harding vs. Hoover), and the quickness of recovery (1920-23 vs. 1929-50).
 
The same problems that caused the Depression also tended to cause the massive recession of 1920-21. The difference is the government reaction to it (Harding vs. Hoover), and the quickness of recovery (1920-23 vs. 1929-50).

and the US recovery is slower than that of most other countries.


any ideas why???


Well THINK then.
 
and the US recovery is slower than that of most other countries.


any ideas why???


Well THINK then.

You think. Leftist econimists have never been able to explain the thumping success that the Harding years saw in turning around the US economy of 1920-21. It doesn't compute with their worldview.
 
You think. Leftist econimists have never been able to explain the thumping success that the Harding years saw in turning around the US economy of 1920-21. It doesn't compute with their worldview.

I have thunk. There is no single answer but in a system where you get a new president every four years and three of those years are electioneering there is little opportunity for considered thought. Sometimes what we call democracy isn't. And sometimes, even when it is, it shouldn't be.
National economies are just that, national, and there must be either consensus (which you will never have) or a non democratic government (which you will never have).
Then you have to remember what it was that made you the greatest economy in the world and realise what it is about your national character that has screwed that up. Look at nations that are coming out of the recession before you. Look at economies that are thriving.
If you prefer your own system then live with it and stop complaining. And, for chrissakes, ditch the idiots who will fight your present president over anything rather than try to understand.
 
The same problems that caused the Depression also tended to cause the massive recession of 1920-21. The difference is the government reaction to it (Harding vs. Hoover), and the quickness of recovery (1920-23 vs. 1929-50).

The 1921 recession was a minor post war recession like the recession of 1947. It was caused by a falloff of wartime demand. You can't compare it to the depression of 1929, or the modern recession (which is the closest parallel to the great depression). You also can't compare either to the inflationary recession of 1979.
 
and the US recovery is slower than that of most other countries.


any ideas why???


Well THINK then.

The US stimulus was actually small compared to most countries. China did one of the biggest economic stimulus's as compared to GDP that have ever been done - maybe the biggest ever. We had Republican senators cut out over 100 billion for no reason than to cut. I mean - it was stupid. If you are not going to accept economic reality, reject the stimulus. It's stupid to say that an economic stimulus is needed by agreeing to vote for one yet refuse to make it the appropriate size. And honestly, our economy needed a stimulus of about 400 billion more than the 800 billion the bill had before the cuts.
 
The US stimulus was actually small compared to most countries. China did one of the biggest economic stimulus's as compared to GDP that have ever been done - maybe the biggest ever. We had Republican senators cut out over 100 billion for no reason than to cut. I mean - it was stupid. If you are not going to accept economic reality, reject the stimulus. It's stupid to say that an economic stimulus is needed by agreeing to vote for one yet refuse to make it the appropriate size. And honestly, our economy needed a stimulus of about 400 billion more than the 800 billion the bill had before the cuts.

Actually. Saying no to some of the globalization idiocy would be the best stimulant around. Just taking care of our own needs would mean an increase in production of most items, plus there would be the added benefit of not having to depend on fascist enemies for our needs.
 
Krugman is another elitist COMMIE..with as we have now been shown the award going to the Hugo Obama, Al Bore and Yasser Arafat, a worthless Nobel prize..
 
Back
Top