Matthew Yglesias » Chuck Grassley Embraces “Insane” Spending Freeze Proposal

Mar 25th, 2009 at 8:42 am

Chuck Grassley Embraces “Insane” Spending Freeze Proposal

To the best of my knowledge, Chuck Grassley is among the best-informed, most-reasonable Republican Senators. He also seems to have gone completely around the bend of late. Now, he’s getting on board the bandwagon calling for a three-year “spending freeze”, the sort of proposal I’m used to hearing from know-nothings like Jim DeMint or John McCain, folks with no understanding of or interest in, policy questions. Pat Garofalo reminds us that “A freeze would have the ‘dramatic effect’ of providing dangerous anti-stimulus at the precise moment when stimulus is needed most.” David Brooks has rightly termed this effort “insane”.

On the merits, it makes no sense whatsoever to worry about short-term deficits, so a short-term spending freeze is ridiculous. Since interest rates are low at the moment and economic projections uncertain, I also wouldn’t put a high priority on worrying about the CBO’s long-term projections regarding the Obama administration’s budget. But if Republicans want to freak out about this in an honest way, they could recognize the need for more revenue. Alternatively, they could propose making Social Security less generous or propose some kind of arbitrary cap on Medicaid spending. Also alternatively, you can propose a boring-sounding technical fix like starting to use the C-CPI-U index both for the indexing of tax rates and for the indexing of Social Security benefits—that would have the result of both raising income taxes and cutting Social Security benefits, but doing so in a very confusing way that might elude public scrutiny.

I don’t think any of that stuff is really necessary at the moment, but any of it would actually address the concern about long-term deficits. A short-term spending freeze, by contrast, would just help drive the economy into the ditch and make long-term problems worse.

Comments
54

Filed under: Budget, Chuck Grassley, taxes

54 Responses to “Chuck Grassley Embraces “Insane” Spending Freeze Proposal”

Will Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 8:47 am
they could recognize the need for more revenue

When was the last time you heard a Republican who recognized that the government needed revenue at all?
Davis X. Machina Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 8:50 am
. A short-term spending freeze, by contrast, would just help drive the economy into the ditch and make long-term problems worse.

It makes for neat bumper stickers in a low-turnout mid-term election, though.

Strong and wrong, baby.
TJ Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 8:53 am
On the plus side, there will be even more money available to give to the bankers. Kill the stimulus bill and they can get $1.8 trillion instead of only $1 trillion.
steve duncan Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 8:58 am
“A short-term spending freeze, by contrast, would just help drive the economy into the ditch and make long-term problems worse.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If this happened during the term of a Democratic president and responsibility could plausibly be pinned on him for the resulting economic disaster that would be bad for Republicans, how?
Jay Severin Has A Small Pen1s Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 9:02 am
It’s always great when rich Americans with guaranteed employment, federally funded healthcare, and assured housing talk about how we should just let the economy hit bottom and then sort it out.

Thanks guys.
Njorl Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Republicans who understand that significant spending is necessary right now also understand that their politicians need to posture to get elected. There is a pool of voters who have little understanding of economics, who buy into the whole “nation as a household” or “nation as a business” schtick. This wins them votes among that crowd.

Undoubtedly, some Republican congressmen themselves fall into that latter catagory. While the internal Republican lamebrain caucus, led by Mike Pence, probably buy into it, I think Grassley knows it’s a political stance.
Don Williams Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 9:04 am
Here is a British MEP attacking Gordon Brown over Britain’s financial problems: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs

THIS is what a REAL multi-party system looks like.

In contrast to the USA –where the Democrats are not criticizing the Republicans but rather are COLLABORATING with them in opening the back door of the Treasury up to crooks and in trying to pull the wool over the eyes of common citizens.
alkali Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Alternatively, they could propose making Social Security less generous or propose some kind of arbitrary cap on Medicaid spending.

I think you mean Medicare spending, but maybe I’m wrong.

(Medicare is the federally funded health care for seniors program; Medicaid is the federal-and-state funded health care for the poor program. Medicare is a lot more costly.)
Hedley Lamarr Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Grassly is mostly interested in producing more ethanol out of the mounds and mounds of corn being produced by his state.

He could be firing this shot to begin a process of barganing over just how much ethanol Obama will support and allow to be subsidized by us rubes.
El Cid Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Nouriel Roubini on the Geithner plan. In short: he thinks it would work for solvent banking institutions, and may be among the best approaches to deal with ‘toxic assets’ held by solvent banks. But it will not address insolvent institutions, which must still be nationalized.

I guess that’s a somewhat positive view; it is up to all of our own judgment if the Obama administration will be willing to take the next step for institutions which this procedure proves to be insolvent, and if they are — and I’d certainly like to think that the legislation being submitted to Congress is aimed at doing that.

So to clarify my viewpoint: I see the Geithner plan as being relevant only to banks that are solvent.

For those that are found — after stress tests — to be insolvent I see as the proper solution — as I have widely written — to nationalize them and thus clean them up to prepare them for re-privatization.

The stress test should do a triage between banks that are illiquid and undercapitalized but solvent given the provision of capital and liquidity and those that, under a reasonable stress scenario are effectively insolvent. Those that are insolvent should be nationalized.

Those that are solvent will still have many toxic assets that need to be disposed of; and the Geithner plan provides a way to properly dispose of the toxic assets of solvent banks.

So my partial support of the Geithner plan – with all the appropriate caveats regarding forcing banks to sell toxic assets and accepting the results of the auctions – is consistent with the complementary idea of nationalizing the insolvent financial institutions.

The bad assets of insolvent banks that are nationalized could be separated from the good assets and then worked out by the government (but the government is not very good in that business); or they could be sold to private investors through an auction mechanism along the lines of the Geithner plan; or they could be sold – together with the good assets – to the investors purchasing a privatized bank that was temporarily privatized (along the lines of the Indy Mac deal where the investors purchasing the bank received a government guarantee on the bad assets after a first loss).

The toxic assets of the solvent banks still need to be disposed of as no private investor will participate in the recapitalization of solvent banks that are still full of bad assets.

Of the four available options for disposing of the toxic assets of the of solvent banks (the government purchashing them in a reverse auction; keeping them on the banks’ book with a guarantee after a first loss (the approach talken with Citi and Bank of America); selling them to private investors with a guarantee after a first loss; or finally the Geithner plan) the Geithner plan provides a solution that is likely to be superior to the other three.

If the government were to buy these assets it would be the only bidder in a reverse auction and price revelation problem would be severe.

Keeping them on the banks’ books with a gurantee after a first loss has been a disaster – as the experience with Citi and Bank of America shows.

Selling them to private investors with a guarantee after first loss would be very non-transparent in the price revelation objective.

So, having private investors bidding for the toxic assets – as in the Geithner plan – ensure a better price revelation that would be impossible in a reverse auction where the government is the only bidder. Also note the the idea – supported by many including myself – of converting some of the unsecured debt into equity to recapitalize banks – works for insolvent bank that go through a receivership proces; it cannot be applied to solvent banks that need recapitalization.

In conclusion the Geithner plan is not an alternative to nationalization: insolvent banks should be nationalized and the Geithner plan should not apply to them. But solvent banks still need to have their toxic assets disposed of; and for this banks the Geithner plan provides a solution that – all in all – is better than the alternative.

Those who dont like the Geithner plan on the basis that they prefer nationalization are right – as i agree – that the insolvent banks should be nationalized. But they usually don’t give an explanation of how they would dispose of the toxic assets of solvent banks. They seem not to like the Geithner plan because it would provide a subsidy to the investors. But ensuring participation of private investors in the risk and in the price revelation is worth that subsidy.

Otherwise those who criticize the Geithner plan as a solution to the toxic assets of solvent banks should come up with an alternative that works and that is less costly to the government than the Geithner plan.

The only part where I would disagree with Roubini is the suggestion that anyone is really publicly discussing what would be done with institutions that are (are discovered to be, if you want to put it that way through the ’stress test’) insolvent. Mainly I think people have been avoiding the question. That’s what causes a lot of people like me to get nervous. And it depends on your interpretation of the government officials involved.
dantonj Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 9:26 am
The reason the republicans are calling for a freeze is “A freeze would have the ‘dramatic effect’ of providing dangerous anti-stimulus at the precise moment when stimulus is needed most.”

In other words, they want Obama to fail. And, if they have to bring down the country to do it, well, they are fine with that.
Craig Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Even if interest rates were very high and we weren’t in a recession a spending freeze would be a bad idea. It is always the case that the relative levels of government spending on different things is wrong. If nothing else there are things like broadband which you just couldn’t even invest in a few decades ago. It just can’t ever be the case that across the board cuts or increases make sense.
JT Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Only lying ahole progs would think of trillion$ deficits shoved off on our children as “short term” and all so that ObaLoser can go on fingerfucking the Left.
Maybe he should take up cigars instead of cigarettes.
Charles Rivet Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Other than Ron Paul, most Republicans have no clue what they are doing. This is basically true of Democrats as well. Though Dennis Kucinich seems to be an honest man and civil libertarian.

But I don’t see how one can object to cutting spending. We are in this mess, partly, because of massive spending, no saving, endless consumption, and low production. My suggestion: repeal these stupid spending bills and slash the defense budget in half. Thus we could cut middle class taxes and people could pay of their debts, put money in the banks, and we could stop printing money and putting the value of the dollar in extreme danger.

Please tell me what sound economic principles lead one to the conclusion that government spending and printing money will help the economy? The government cannot create wealth, it can only steal it.
Buy Propecia Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Buy Propecia…

http://www.folkd.com/user/buypropeciaonline Buy Propecia…
Joel Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 9:50 am
“The government cannot create wealth, it can only steal it.”

Ah, the bleat of the libertarian.

Nobody says that the stimulus plan is “creating wealth.” The purpose of the government stimulus is to stabilize the flow of money so that private sector wealth creation doesn’t grind to a halt.
Thomas Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 9:54 am
There’s insane and then there’s Matt Yglesias, who combines insanity with inanity. The Obama administration’s economic projections say that we’ll have growth next year, and proposes tax increases for the following year. Last night the Obama administration strongly suggested that things had already begun to turn around. Assuming those projections have some merit and aren’t just political, then the Grassley proposal isn’t a significant risk at all. Under Grassley’s proposal the federal government would run deficits of nearly $3 trillion this year and next, reflecting the stimulus passed this year and the fall off in revenues from the recession. There’s no reason at all to think that it would have a negative impact on the economy. No reason, except that it’s an article of faith among the Journolist set.

Meanwhile, Matt wants to slash defense spending over the short term, and favors tax increases over the same period that Grassley wants a spending freeze. Macroeconomic impact of fiscal policy is entirely out of the picture on these items, because they too are articles of faith. You start there and build.

What’s really odd is that Matt has forgotten for today the Journolist mantra that social security is not a long term fiscal problem. Matt, don’t forget to run this shit by Paul and Ezra before posting–sometimes you get on the wrong page.
nolaboyd Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Wow, is this Rivet guy a real person, or just a libertarian computer algorithm? Because I would like to know the economic situation that wouldn’t get the cut-spending-cut-taxes recommendation.
nolaboyd Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 9:59 am
There’s no reason at all to think that it would have a negative impact on the economy. No reason, except that it’s an article of faith among the Journolist set.

And just about every economist you ask. I know you folks don’t like listening to people who actually know things, but I’m just sayin’.
Stefan Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 10:00 am
To the best of my knowledge, Chuck Grassley is among the best-informed, most-reasonable Republican Senators.

High praise indeed….
Stefan Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Please tell me what sound economic principles lead one to the conclusion that government spending and printing money will help the economy?

Keynesian principles. See, e.g. Depression, Great.
TJ Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Wow, is this Rivet guy a real person, or just a libertarian computer algorithm? Because I would like to know the economic situation that wouldn’t get the cut-spending-cut-taxes recommendation.

Nah. He has a point about the defense budget. For a broke country we’re spending a truly awesome amount on the military. There aren’t too many economists who would tell you military spending is all that stimulative.
Charles Rivet Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 10:17 am
I’m actually not a libertarian. But let’s stick to the argument.

Is there something fundementally wrong with saving and production (though I would prefer producing things we actually need like food, clothing, shelter, energy, etc.)?

Is it really a good thing for society–not to mention the environment–to have an economy based on endless spending and consumption? Not only does this lead to a purely materialistic society but it exhausts natural resources.

Do I have any right to complain about the massive spending on insane and illegal foreign wars and the continued propsperity of the military-industrial complex?

How does this help anyone except a few wealthy elite?

And to answer the question, I cannot think of any situation where I would want a massive tax and spend program.
cate Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 10:18 am
I think the “what would a family do” analogy, however, has a common sense cache that is being undervalued. What we need to do is promote a counterargument that shows why the analogy is flawed in the terms of the analogy itself.

It would sound something like this: “The GOP is suggesting that a family should react to hard economic times by pulling the kids out of school and cutting out their doctor’s visits.” It picks up on the idea that even families recognize that you prioritize important investments in the future even when the present is bleak–certainly there are a lot of Americans who would sell their home and their car in order to keep their kids in good health and in a good school. In other words, we need to communicate that the Republicans are asking for the wrong sacrifice.
Th Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 10:22 am
The only reason people like Grassley are taken seriously is their office. Most reporters seem to take for granted that Senators and Congressmen know something about what they are discussing and regurgitate their statements in print. I would ask Grassley who his economic advisers are who think this is a good idea. Does he even have any who would want their names associated with this proposal? Maybe it is the 24 year old son of a major supporter who just got his finance degree from U of Iowa after five years of hard partying. Cut through the political statements masquerading as economic policy and make them support their position.
Craig Rivet Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Even if the dubious assertion that Keynes saved us from the Great Depression were true, there are still major differences between 1933 and 2009. Namely, we have lost nearly our entire manufacturing infrastructure and most people in the 30s lived in rural areas or at least knew how to grow some of their own food and had other basic thriftiness skills.

And aside from the poor economic fundementals of Keynes, it was critical in centralizing government power for the great empire builders Roosevelt and Truman. Why do you think the federal government loves Keynes so much?
Adam Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 10:40 am
#25:

Better yet, the proper analogy is that they think families should be cutting back on nutritious food for their kids and eliminating doctor’s visits while *buying more guns*. Because I haven’t heard a single elected Republican not named Ron Paul even hint at cutting a single dollar from the defense budget, let alone the 50% slashing that’s actually needed for fiscal solvency. And in fact I imagine they would be extremely vocal in opposition to any plan to do that.
Joel Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 10:48 am
“Is there something fundementally wrong with saving and production (though I would prefer producing things we actually need like food, clothing, shelter, energy, etc.)?”

Nope. Did anyone say there was?

“Is it really a good thing for society–not to mention the environment–to have an economy based on endless spending and consumption? Not only does this lead to a purely materialistic society but it exhausts natural resources.”

Nope. Did anyone say there was?

“Do I have any right to complain about the massive spending on insane and illegal foreign wars and the continued propsperity of the military-industrial complex?”

Sure. Did anyone say you didn’t?

“How does this help anyone except a few wealthy elite?”

I assume “this” refers to stimulus spending. If so, yes, it does.
Amorphous Rivet Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 10:49 am
@28

So what? The Democrats have control. They could cut defense and repeal the Patriot Act. Oops, did I say that? I guess we good liberals all just kinda forgot about that, eh? It’s funny that Obama and the Democrats don’t want to give up any of the power the Boy Prince won for them.
Thomas Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 10:56 am
nolaboyd, let’s walk through this, if you’re capable. Matt asserts that a 3 year budget freeze would be an antistimulus. I guess that’s true, in the same trivial sense that refusing to spend $10 trillion, or $50 trillion is antistimulus. The question is, assuming that fiscal policy is relevant, what’s the appropriate level of deficit spending? It simply isn’t the case that more is always better. Over two years, under the Obama plan, which Matt supports with every fiber of his being, the deficit would be approximately $3.2 trillion, while under the Grassley plan, which Matt strongly opposes, it would be approximately $3.1 trillion. Dangerous? Insane? Those words describe Matt and you, not Grassley’s plan.
Adam Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 11:09 am
“The Democrats have control. They could cut defense and repeal the Patriot Act.”

Erm. Please outline the process under which this could be done, if you would. “The Democrats” are not a unified force of progressive, Kos/Yglesias-types, or even Obama-types. We can’t even cut farm subsidies because Democratic Senators in farm states are so strongly against it.

If you had, say, 70 Democratic Senators, then yes, you could probably tell the entrenched ones who aren’t really that interested in fixing things to fuck off. But it’s the height of ignorance to say that 59 Senators in a broad coalition that includes Nelson, Landrieu, Bayh, Conrad, Pryor, etc etc could or possibly will pass a massive progressive overhaul of the budget, let alone any kind of non-budget bill that they can’t actually pass at all since it requires 60.

I’m with you though in supporting primary challengers to said entrenched Senators. I don’t see that being enormously productive, especially given in several cases they’re the only Democrats capable of winning in their red states, but it’s worth a shot.
Simply Rivet Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Adam,

My point is only to connect, in a shorthand way, the fact that the same people here who are advocating the insane economic policies that continue to centralize State power, are also those who, I think, find the Patriot Act a very dangerous tool that could be used for Tyrannical purposes.

The same economic policies we are pursuing now are those that gave power to the Roosevelt-Truman empire builders, and the sooner people realize that the modern nation state is evil–and the globalist one currently under construction will be even worse–then we can actually get somewhere.

“Progress is a comfortable disease” — ee cummings
Rivet Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 11:43 am
In general, I like you folks. But we need a broader coalition, even if temporary. Maligning libertarians as “algorithims” isn’t doing any good. The Austrian libertarians, in particular, can be very helpful in certain fights. The same goes for paleoconservatives, Catholic Rightists, agrarians, anarchists, and old-fashioned liberals. As Gore Vidal puts it, the enemy is the American Empire. An enemy of the empire is a friend of mine.
J Flum Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
This text is in italics, this text isn’t. I’m just trying out my linking skills
Paulie Carbone Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
El Cid that Roubini link kicked ass, thanks.

Rivet,

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m interested in resoring the economy to health. I’m not interested in fighting the “American empire.” I’m not worried that the federal government will become tyrannical because of the stimulus bill. Austrian economics is crackpot bullshit. You may find it useful propaganda in your war against the U.S. government, but I want no part of whatever crazy shit you’re planning for.
Njorl Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Is it really a good thing for society–not to mention the environment–to have an economy based on endless spending and consumption? Not only does this lead to a purely materialistic society but it exhausts natural resources.

It seems pretty good to me. The only people who do not consume are dead, and even a few of those are notable exceptions.

If you mean that we shouldn’t have an economy that is dependent upon eternal, ever-increasing consumption, I’d agree. Capitalism is fine for promoting growth, but it is also absolutely dependent upon growth. At some point, unfulfilled “wants” will need to take aback seat to unsustainable growth. Most of the world isn’t there yet. I think we’re getting close. We spend considerable effort creating “wants” rather than just fulfilling them. Nobody wanted a Hummer, they had to be convinced they wanted one.
Njorl Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m interested in resoring the economy to health. I’m not interested in fighting the “American empire.” I’m not worried that the federal government will become tyrannical because of the stimulus bill.

I agree. The difference between nations with strong central governments and those without is that those with strong central governments often continue to exist. Afghanistan and the Confederacy should not be our ideals of model government.
shawn Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
A serious question: Does an “across-the-board spending freeze” include a freeze on Senators’ salaries?
Njorl Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Over two years, under the Obama plan, which Matt supports with every fiber of his being, the deficit would be approximately $3.2 trillion, while under the Grassley plan, which Matt strongly opposes, it would be approximately $3.1 trillion. Dangerous? Insane? Those words describe Matt and you, not Grassley’s plan.

That’s a two year period beginning in October of 2008. You’re advocating freezing defense spending at levels reached with near maximum deployment to Iraq, when we’re pulling out – medicare spending in the face of soaring medical costs – social security spending despite the numbers of people on social security increasing.

In short, you’re advocating an across the board freeze on the budget at levels set by a Republican, for most of Obama’s term. Aside from the nakedly obvious political motivation, it is idiocy to bind the government’s hands at a time when it needs to respond to crises. President Obama may be optimistic about recovery before the end of the year, but that doesn’t make it a sure thing.
Njorl Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
A serious question: Does an “across-the-board spending freeze” include a freeze on Senators’ salaries?

Yes, but it’s not a big deal. Senate pay is based on inflation. That’s one thing we’re not going to see much of before October of 2011.

More importantly, it freezes out any chance of increasing social program spending at the expense of military spending. You’ll note that Grassley isn’t advocating a freeze on the total federal budget – not that that is a good idea either.
Rivet Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Yes, I meant endless consumption. I thought that was clear. I’m not advocating starvation. The word “economy,” of course, comes from the Greek “oikonomos,” which means household management. That might be a good place to begin an economic discussion. Xenophon’s short work The Economist is an interesting read, if one is interested in the ancient Greeks’ coneption of economics.

I’m starting to think I have the wrong site. I was told that this was a site friendly to the local food, peak oil, antiwar leftist crowd. I admit I should have been less sarcastic and juvenile.

Austrian economic theory has some merits but it is essentially flawed because of its wrong assumptions about human nature. One might actually wish to read the literature before calling it “crackpot bullshit,” however. Begin with Man, Economy, and State by Murray Rothbard. Along with David Gordon and Wilhelm Ropke, Rothbard is unique among the Austrians in that they are well versed in history, philosophy, and literature, and they actually apply moral principles to economics!

Ultimately, however, Austrian economics is one of many flawed theories born of Enlightenment rationalism and 19th century liberalism.

The comment that I am planning for some “crazy shit” is intended to associate me with some radical militia movement, I assume. I am not. Plenty of reasonable, intelligent people object to the American Empire. Gore Vidal is a good example.

American government is already tyrannical. At least it is by the standards of 1776. Were they crazy? I think the people in Iraq, Vietnam, and Serbia might have some interesting thoughts on the benevolence of the American government. They found out what the South, the Phillipines, and Nagasaki and Hiroshima learned many years ago. I don’t have all the answers, but I think I see a pattern developing.

Centralized governments have a nasty history of murder and brutality. The French Revolution, Sherman’s March to the Sea, the Russian Revolution and its aftermath, Mao’s regime in China, German National Socialism, etc. One could also mention Sparta and Imperial Rome. The United States’ endless wars to “save the world for Democracy” might also indicate the nature of large, militarized nation states. No, they do not survive forever.
Thomas Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Njorl, Matt isn’t complaining about the allocation of the money, he’s saying that the fiscal policy implied would be antistimulus. Which is just nuts. If you think that Grassley’s spending levels are fine, but defense spending should be shifted to social spending, then Matt thinks you’re nuts.
Paulie Carbone Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Rivet,

I don’t share your view that Imperial Japan, the Confederacy, and Slobodan Milosovic’s Serbia are innocent victims of the evil American empire. I don’t think the current U.S. government is tyrannical, and I think lumping it in with Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Maoist China is patently ridiculous. I don’t think sharing a view with Gore Vidal makes it reasonable. Murray Rothbard is a crazy jackass; his critique of Keynes is a joke. Applying moral principles to economics just leads to bad economics. Local food is a silly fad and Alice Waters annoys the living shit out of me. But then again, I’m mostly just a troll.
Rivet Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
I don’t think going to war with Japan was necessary but even if it was, it is pretty difficult to defend the use of nuclear weapons.

I doubt it will do much good to start a discussion on the Civil War. Sometimes, however, literature can awaken one to a new way of seeing things. I suggest reading Robert Lowell’s “For the Union Dead.” It never hurts to look at another side of things.

Milosovic was a tyrant but he was no worse than anyone else in the region. You can continue to believe in the justness of such actions if you wish. I’m sure it has no connection to the American habit of policing the world and attempting to set up Democratic globalist states in places like Mesopotamia.

I don’t think it is ridiculous to compare similarities between the U.S. and other regimes through history. It does not follow that we are exactly the same or quite as evil, yet we have some similarities and have done many evil things. There is no need to reduce my statements to levels that they obviously were not meant to be. In other words, I never said the U.S. is just like NAZI Germany.

I never said holding an opinion with Gore Vidal, or anyone, makes that opinion valid. I was pointing to an example of just one person of many who hold similar views and are not nuts, which I felt was being implied about me.

Why can’t people just discuss the ideas at hand.

I apologized for a few of my early comments that were sarcastic. I meant it. I think these are important issues that need to be discussed.

I doubt you have read Rothbard.

Your statement that morality produces bad economics sounds like the disgusting Ayn Rand.

Local food is not going to solve all problems. Rightly understood, it is a good idea that can help produce a more just society. Plus, I happen to like fresh, tasty veggies. I can’t force someone to think that food matters or that our agriculture policy produces very bad effects on many people in the world.

I have no idea who Alice Waters is.
Eric H Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Rivet,

I’m actually not a libertarian.

Aside from the question of how it is you self identify, everything you’ve written is pretty much doctrinaire left-libertarianism. I can sympathize somewhat, as I’m a proudhonian mutualist at heart, but we would presumably part ways over how the government is to be rightly understood. I’ve long since come to regard the rigid anti-statism of both right and left contemporary libertarianism as an anachronistic throwback to the 19th century. In short, the state, it turns out, is not necessarily so inimical to the spirit of liberty.

I don’t think it is ridiculous to compare similarities between the U.S. and other regimes through history.

Quite right. But your error is in the lopsided nature of your comparisons. If you wish to demonstrate the undesirability of a strong centralized state, you’ll need to do more than point out that those nations widely regarded as villainous have possessed strong centralized governments. What you’ll need to demonstrate is that those nations widely regarded as just who happen to have strong centralized governments, such as say present day Denmark, are, contrary to appearances, actually villainous.
Paulie Carbone Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Rivet,

If you don’t think Pearl Harbor necessitated war than I don’t see what would. It’s not hard to defend using nuclear weapons at all. The alternative was to let Curtis LeMay systematically incinerate them one Dresden-style conventional bombing at a time. Nuclear weapons likely saved both Japanese and American lives. That is, unless you think it was realistic to suppose that we’d fight them back to their home islands just to offer a truce. But that’s certainly open to debate because nuking people is some pretty cold shit.

There’s nothing wrong with good tasting local food. But if you live up north and it’s winter, your options are kind of limited. Alice Waters is a self-righteous celebrity chef.

I’ve tried to read Rothbard, but I just can’t handle it. The whole Austrian school sucks. It’s not taken seriously by mainstream economists.

I agree that defending the confederacy will not lead anywhere. Sherman kicked ass, and those rednecks deserved it.

The Nazi comment wasn’t unfair because you specifically mentioned “German national socialism.”
Eric H Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Paulie,

The whole Austrian school sucks. It’s not taken seriously by mainstream economists.

That would be due to the fact that the Austrian school of economics isn’t really economics at all. It’s a normative philosophy posing as economics. Or, perhaps more accurately, it is a normative critique of classical economics which mistakenly came to be viewed as an alternative school of economic thought.
Rivet Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Eric,

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Yes, there are succesful utopian socialist states like Sweden and Denmark. I wouldn’t mind Denmark myself. One major difference between Denmark and the U.S. is that Denmark is small and homogonous, while the United States are large and multicultural. Moroever, our position as the world police complicates matters.

In any case, Denmark is not the norm. The Hobbesian state has been a wrecking crew on civilization since the French Revolution. At some point, one has to begin to question why the 20th century was such a century of horrors. A good place to begin is with Robert Conquest’s Reflections on a Ravaged Century.

Any human rights activist will tell you that States, not terrorist groups, Bible thumpers, or militiamen, are responsible for the terrible deathtoll. The misery caused by state sponsered social engineering–particularly in America with Deweyite progressive education–is another factor hard to look past.

As far as Austrian economics goes, I agree with the general Rothbardian analysis of the State and they tend to know how markets work better than Krugman and his cronies. I briefly mentioned above where I think the Austrians go astray. And they do go astray.

Saying that mainstream economists do not take them seriously is no argument at all. A mainstream economist, like Nobel winner Milton Friedman, did in fact take the Austrian school seriously and borrowed many ideas from Hayek, Rothbard and Mises in his dissertation.

Yes, the Austrian school, like Marxism, is closer to philosophy. But economics actually is more philosophy than science. If it were science than there would be concrete ways of testing it and consensus on basic principles.

Personally, I’m tired of economics. Contrary to popular opinion, I believe it should play a minor role in public discourse.

I’m not impressed with mainstream anything. Isn’t that why you folks read this blog, to get at truth that the mainstream doesn’t provide?

In case you’re interested, Eric, we’re having a good discussion over at Chronicles about the definition of terms such as “liberal,” “socialist,” “libertarian,” etc. It is being led by Thomas Fleming, perhaps the greatest American intellectual in the past 50 years. I’m sure somebody is all set to tell me he is a “crazy jackass” but, unlike Rothbard, Fleming is still alive and I would be happy to watch someone try to debate him.

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/index.php/2009/03/25/defining-terms/
tomemos Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Rivet,

I think I’d begin an argument with Fleming by stating that his belief that classical society was superior to ours in all ways is misguided. His speaking in the voice of Cicero is a strange example of this, as is his statement that slaves were well-off compared to modern-day laborers. Your comments seem to show the same kind of archaism—the discussion of Xenophon and the etymology of “economics,” the anti-progress Cummings quote. I’m not saying that there’s no value in any of this (except the slaves thing), but you can’t get mad at us for wanting to engage with the real world rather than the ancient one.
Tomemos Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Tomemos,

I’m not mad at anybody. I was cranky earlier becaue I didn’t eat till 1pm. I’ll read his article again, I don’t think he said that classical society is better in every way. His comment that implied some slaves were better off than modern laborers is meant, I think, to cause one to reflect on our notions of progress and superiority to all past societies. Do you disagree that possibly Mexican farm laborers have similar circumstances to Roman slaves?

I think speaking as Cicero or using Socratic dialogue is an interesting way of presenting ideas. Maybe it’s not for everybody. Oh well.

I still think there is plenty of intellectual meat in the article and using history, philosophy, and philological analysis is not a failure to “engage with the real world.” If you take away such tools what are you left with? Pure ideology, as far as I can tell. In fact, if you read the article, Dr. Fleming makes a pretty pursuasive argument as to why we need to be more careful in how we use language. I became convinced of this by reading George Orwell. If you read Orwell’s essays, you’ll never listen to political language the same way again.
Rivet Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
I must have wrote Tomemos in my heading because it was in my head. Sorry, Obviously, I wrote the last post.
Paulie Carbone Says:
March 26th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
I think the Classical shit is cool, Rivet. Fleming is a crazy jackass, but he’s definitely interesting. Name checking Orwell on political rhetoric is not interesting, however, as everyone and his brother’s read Orwell.
Rivet Says:
March 26th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Yes, Orwell is a popular read, though usually for Animal Farm and “Shooting an Elephant.” His literary criticism and other essays are less well known. Orwell is one of those writers people like to quote and talk about and have never really read or understood. For example, conservatives love to quote Orwell but fail to mention that he was ostensibly a Democratic Socialist, who believed in economic central planning.

In any case, if people really do read Orwell, then why do I see all the same “anti-fascist” rhetoric, from both the left and right, that Orwell mercilessly mocked in the 1930s? I like originality, too, but I also like solid ideas, no matter how many people invoke them without any real knowledge of their context and true meaning.
Serena Says:
April 16th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Excuse me. Howard Hughes was able to afford the luxury of madness, like a man who not only thinks he is Napoleon but hires an army to prove it.
I am from Rwanda and too bad know English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “Just have them stop by the ticket counter with a government issued photo id to furs, medicine, eyeglasses, airplane tickets, money, passports, camera equipment.”

Regards Serena.

Matt Yglesias

Chuck Grassley Embraces “Insane” Spending Freeze Proposal

54 Responses to “Chuck Grassley Embraces “Insane” Spending Freeze Proposal”

Blogroll