The Fundamentals Still Apply

Scott Sumner reminds us that economic fundamentals still apply in a piece at Econlib:

  1. Price controls are bad (whether on wages, prices rents or interest rates.)
  2. Large budget deficits are bad, even if interest rates are low at the time.
  3. Persistent inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.
  4. Free market economies do better than statist economies. Emulate Denmark, not Argentina.

I don’t think he means that last sentence. At least I hope so or that he means it only in part. Denmark is 86% ethnic Danish (down from 96% 50 years ago). The United States has never been 86% anything including American.

In the piece he provides some good examples of how those thing are true along with this observation:

But what about global warming? Didn’t something need to be done? Here it’s worth noting that the approach most favored by economists (a carbon tax) would have actually reduced our budget deficit. That would have been the logical approach. Instead we went with a set of open ended subsidies that boosted the budget deficit. Even worse, we favored local producers over imports, even if imported goods could address global warming more effectively. We were told that global warming was such a big problem that we could no longer rely on a free market economy, but then implemented mercantilist policies that prioritized subsidizing domestic special interest groups over addressing global warming.

Apparently global warming was merely a pretext for industrial policies that were being implemented for other reasons.

That’s my problem with today’s politics generally. A tremendous number of things are being advocated for reasons other than their own merits and possibly for personal gain. Some deviate so far from their own merits one can hardly escape concluding they’re being espoused for gain.

5 comments… add one
  • steve Link

    It seems to be pretty common now that if someone doesnt solve a problem the way you think it should be solved then you claim that someone really wasn’t trying to solve the problem. If we were to make a list of things that most economists are wrong about it would be very long.

    Query- States routinely offer companies special tax deals and subsidies to move from one state to theirs. Or to build in their state rather than another state when coming from overseas. That is billed as being pro-business. Why isn’t that regarded as industrial policy/mercantilist?

    Steve

  • Drew Link

    “Apparently global warming was merely a pretext for industrial policies that were being implemented for other reasons.”

    You don’t say.

    “States routinely offer companies special tax deals and subsidies to move from one state to theirs…….Why isn’t that regarded as industrial policy/mercantilist?”

    If its subsidies it is. Its an economic intrusion and implies some oracle knows what to subsidize. Its pure folly. See: Solyndra, or electric cars……..or……..

    The absence or reduction in taxation is the removal of an economic distortion. Its different in kind.

  • Drew Link

    “https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/labor-market-implodes-job-openings-crater-prior-data-unexpectedly-revised-sharply-lower”

    I wonder if it will still be Bidenomics? Hell, I wonder if any of the regime media will even report it…….

  • steve Link

    The program of which Solyndra was a part, a loan program not a subsidy, actually made money. One of the problems we do have with government is that not 100% of its efforts are successful, unlike VC where 100% of all ventures make money.

    Steve

  • Drew Link

    That must be why Solyndra is prospering.. (snicker)

    I know all things investment flummox you steve. But you might want to consider some issues and save the snark.

    Voluntary investment does not equal mandatory taxation for investment. By government wizards. (snicker) You might want to consider why the notion of an Accredited Investor exists. What the concept of beta means. The cold hard reality of ROI in venture capital vs government. I could go on.

    Every few years another wave of bankrupt solar deals hits our radar. Needs savior capital to bail the enterprise out of their inherently uneconomic investment assumptions. Been going on for at least 20 years. But there is always another fool.

    You’d be an Accredited Investor, steve, based solely on the net worth criterion. Interested in putting a chunk of that into a solar deal? How about EV batteries? I’m told they are just one technological improvement away from nirvana……..

Leave a Comment