A Summit Which Won’t Do The Job


In what has to be the most astounding recognition of the obvious in recent political history, Barack Obama has come to the conclusion that he needs to create more jobs. This is blindingly obvious from his philosophical point of view, but it is also as pathetically wrong as it is erudite. Francis Cianfrocca takes to the PodCast waves to assail the risible qualities of his jobs summit quite effectively. I’ll endeavor to pick up the standard of economic ratiocination from where the Mighty Blackhedd left it planted, and advance it further forward.

Francis points out two key elements of why this jobs summit won’t be getting anything useful done. He argues that the people involved are too sycophantic to think outside the Obama Box. He also points out that even if forced to hear conflicting evidence, the President and his party have all but officially announced their pending decision. This conference is a validation and momentum-building exercise. Thus, classify the resulting expenditures under Marketing and Promotion; not R&D.

This unfortunate result stems from President Obama’s political philosophy and its limiting presuppositions of how an economy should work. He, like his philosophical mentor, John Maynard Keynes, uses the analogy of a physical system, under mechanical laws, to comprehend how the economy functions. He almost imagines a world economy like a Carnot Engine with pistons and valves that have to run smoothly in order for people like myself to be able to buy my three-year old child shoes whenever necessary.

Just as a Carnot engine works at optimal efficiency determined by the work performed divided by the calories injected into the system, the US economy should work at some optimal level defined by the Gross Domestic Productproduced, divided by the capital fed into its hypothetical blast furnaces. Thus, President Obama sees unemployment as a simple mechanical problem solved by feeding the blast furnaces money until the pistons start whirring in consonant harmony.

To a limited extent, Keynes had a point. If I were King Stephen I of America, I could make anything look temporarily more happy by funding it to the hilt. Where Keynes and therefore Obama fall short, and where the Imaginary Keynesian Carnot Engine of Political Economy overflows the reservoir, comes from the fact that no Keynesian every willingly admits that some limit exists to how big a mound of coal can be shoveled into the blast furnace.

They will admit this formally, like a scientist writing a theoretical paper. Keynes himself defines a state of inflation; under which government spending does more harm than good.
However, he defines that state in such a restrictive fashion that even the consecutive mal-administrations of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter couldn’t produce this horrifying state of reality. It was a check-the-block exercise. In the Keynesian Mind, there is no legitimate limit to either government spending or to fiscal expansion.

David Gordon describes an illustrative passage from Keynes’ primary text; The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Keynes expounds on interest rate policy below.


In The General Theory, Keynes said: “The remedy for the boom is not a higher rate of interest but a lower rate of interest! For that may enable the boom to last. The right remedy for the trade cycle is not to be found in abolishing booms and thus leaving us in a semi-slump; but in abolishing slumps and thus keeping us permanently in a quasi-boom.”

I had never before assumed that John Maynard Keynes and Allen Greenspan would share so much agreement on what the Federal Reserve should do with interest rates. Keynes wanted the economy in perpetual wash with circulating money, even at the expense of that currency’s underlying value. Keynes was also very particular about who should control where these funds got apportioned.

Keynes disrespected investors. Just as President Obama previously excoriated GM and Chrysler creditors and as predatory and feckless, John Maynard Keynes doubted both the motives and the faculties of the investor class of his day. Gordon describes the Keynesian theory of how investors operate below.

Keynes assumed without adequate basis that investors are driven by irrational “animal spirits.” Keynes condemned what he called “casino capitalism.” Investors, in his view, made irrational decisions based on what they guessed others would do.

In a manner similar to how Obama’s belief in Keynes limits the directions of his thoughts, Keynes’ assumptions regarding investor behavior overdetermined his views of how the government should interoperate with markets. Gordon lays out Keynes’ theories on the role of government below.

Keynes’s program went far beyond monetary expansion. He wanted the government to take control of investment. Wise planners would do much better in guiding the economy than the speculators of “casino capitalism.” He remarks in The General Theory that he favors “a somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment.” (p. 56)

As we approach our eagerly anticipated jobs summit with the baited breath and roiling anticipation we always feel when Barack Obama blesses us once more with his omnipresence in the media, keep several thing in mind. Obama, like Keynes, believes that the profit motive that animates private investment is nefarious and insufficient to optimize social outcomes.

Thus he agrees with Keynes about the central role of “wise planners” in telling the rest of us what we do and do not have the right to do with the fruits of our labors. I find it sadly ironic to find a Son of Illinois so morally opposed to the fundamental concept of Emancipation brought into law under President Abraham Lincoln.

Therefore, given the philosophical inclinations of the people we have elected, we are all blessed that President Obama is holding this jobs summit. Under the hyper-Keynesian policy conditions that his administration insists on promulgating, the US Federal government is about the only employer who will have the wherewithal to do any serious hiring.


Category: , ,

RSS feed

8 Comments Leave a comment

Keynes is too "conservative" for this lot.

Achance (Diary) Thursday, December 3rd at 1:46PM EST (link)

Some of the Treasury types probably are Keynes disciples, but Comrade Obama’s close associates are dorm room communists who might have had one undergraduate class in economics in which they did just enough to keep their GPA up; those are really, really, really, really boring classes with a lot more stuff about graphs etc. than about economic systems and theories.

Comrade Obama has the typical lefty/union/community/organizer view of economics that goes something like this: business bad, government good; employer bad, employee good; profits bad, taxes good. I’ve dealt with lots of leftie union and political operatives including the Ivy League ones and they’ve all had a completely binary, zero-sum view of economics and to a man and woman have simply hated business and employers. They are realizig their most dearly held dreams when they dispossess shareholders and give companies to the union. The real test will be when a dispute arises between the government and the unions they’re giving all this property to. My money is on that being when the real communists come out and smash the unions like bugs.

In Vino Veritas

Those are the "moderate" ones

aesthete (Diary) Thursday, December 3rd at 1:50PM EST (link)

Go into any sociology, writing, or ethnic major, and you’ll find a lot of professors who make even that simplistic view of economy almost masterful by comparison, demonizing everything from currency down to the idea of labor being good.

The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton

That's true, at least the union/community organizer types

Achance (Diary) Thursday, December 3rd at 2:34PM EST (link)

have some idea that there is some economic endeavor going on. The more etheral ones in social sciences, education, etc. just think their livelihood comes from Obama’s Stash or some such place.

I see a lot of it here in Juneau; all the real money in the Alaska economy comes from natural resource extraction mostly oil but to lesser extent mining. Even in a government town like JNU, the best jobs are in mining, there’s just not that many of them compared to government. That said, the population is predominantly lower and middle level bureaucrats in the State and federal government and especially for the State the largest presences are the social services agencies and education. You’d have to go to Berzerkley to find more rabid greenies and NIMBYs than we have here because they simply cannot comprehend where the money that makes their paycheck possible comes from. The upper level State officials, even in Democrat administrations, are more cognizant of where the money comes from, but unfortunately, SWWOG moved almost all of them to Anchorage.

In Vino Veritas

Another Reason to Legalize Medical Ganja

Repair_Man_Jack (Diary) Thursday, December 3rd at 2:40PM EST (link)

“their livelihood comes from Obama’s Stash…” – LMAO!

” I side impenitently with the human race against the modern reformer.” – C.S. Lewis

 

Being a college student in the heart of AZ's version of SanFran has given me some real head-scratchers

aesthete (Diary) Friday, December 4th at 4:04AM EST (link)

including one student who simply would not accept that money had any use in trade! Though the one that that takes the prize for most laughable economic fallacy is the fiction that the ethnic majors have invented, where the Americas and sub-Saharan Africa had a high quality of life until the mean old (and presumably male) white people took it all away from them.

The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton

 
 
 
 

Keynes' ideas were ludicrous

aesthete (Diary) Thursday, December 3rd at 1:58PM EST (link)

and were based to some extent on the presuppositions which made communism such a disaster: that centralized decision makers without incentives could collect the information necessary to make a decision on the economy better than the private sector. Since the Phillips curve was disproved in the late ’70s, even those who have claimed to be Keynesian have come to a more neo-classical view on the economy. Yet, Obama’s advisors continue the charade that orthodox Keynesian thought still has any shred of credibility.

The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton

The Credibility May Be Gone, But The Groupies Linger....

Repair_Man_Jack (Diary) Thursday, December 3rd at 2:45PM EST (link)

This guy reminds me of the Michael Douglass character in the movie “Jewell of The Nile.” The one who was deeply bummed that the Doobie Brothers broke up years after this was remotely relevant.

Here’s an example of the reborn JMK fan club on the left.

” I side impenitently with the human race against the modern reformer.” – C.S. Lewis

I like this little gem

aesthete (Diary) Friday, December 4th at 3:59AM EST (link)

From comment #12: “Germany had the 3rd largest collapse in GDP among the major western nations (26%) during 1928-32, and the greatest recovery. This resulted from Hitler’s exteem [sic] fiscal stimulus (there were no suicidal economists to tell Hitler that he could not do this, as FDR’s advisors limited the New Deal).”

It takes Holocaust levels of denial (no word play intended) to suggest that the idea that Hitler was some sort of economic savior hasn’t been absolutely smashed to bits by contemporary economists.

Also, you’re absolutely right about Keynesian groupies: much like rock star groupies, they don’t seem to recognize that the party’s over, and that their idol’s glory days are long past. Interestingly enough, almost every concrete policy position popularized by Keynes and taken as gospel truth by his latter-day disciples was rejected by Keynes himself: for all of his flaws (and he had many), Keynes was the consummate tinkerer, and was more than willing to self-contradict if he saw merit in another idea. This means that all that a true Keynesian is left with is the idea that more government = good, free market = bad, which immediately reveals why the party and philosophy of government would find Keynes’ doctrine, if the word applies here, so attractive.

It still amazes me that, in an age when virtually all of liberal economics’ main touchstones have been ripped asunder (Pigou’s concept of internalizing externalities ripped apart by Coase; Friedman, of course; “rightist” Neo-Keynesians like Greg Mankiw proven right on the issue of tax cuts as effective stimulus, etc.), there is such an unprecedented groundswell of support for Keynesianism without good cause.

The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton