Showing posts with label Russell Roberts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russell Roberts. Show all posts

Monday, June 28, 2010

Russ Roberts on F.A. Hayek

Why Friedrich Hayek Is Making a Comeback

With the failure of Keynesian stimulus, the late Austrian economist's ideas on state power and crony capitalism are getting a new hearing.

He was born in the 19th century, wrote his most influential book more than 65 years ago, and he's not quite as well known or beloved as the sexy Mexican actress who shares his last name. Yet somehow, Friedrich Hayek is on the rise.

When Glenn Beck recently explored Hayek's classic, "The Road to Serfdom," on his TV show, the book went to No. 1 on Amazon and remains in the top 10. Hayek's persona co-starred with his old sparring partner John Maynard Keynes in a rap video "Fear the Boom and Bust" that has been viewed over 1.4 million times on YouTube and subtitled in 10 languages.

Why the sudden interest in the ideas of a Vienna-born, Nobel Prize-winning economist largely forgotten by mainstream economists?

Hayek is not the only dead economist to have garnered new attention. Most of the living ones lost credibility when the Great Recession ended the much-hyped Great Moderation. And fears of another Great Depression caused a natural look to the past. When Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke zealously expanded the Fed's balance sheet, he was surely remembering Milton Friedman's indictment of the Fed's inaction in the 1930s. On the fiscal side, Keynes was also suddenly in vogue again. The stimulus package was passed with much talk of Keynesian multipliers and boosting aggregate demand.

But now that the stimulus has barely dented the unemployment rate, and with government spending and deficits soaring, it's natural to turn to Hayek. He championed four important ideas worth thinking about in these troubled times.

First, he and fellow Austrian School economists such as Ludwig Von Mises argued that the economy is more complicated than the simple Keynesian story. Boosting aggregate demand by keeping school teachers employed will do little to help the construction workers and manufacturing workers who have borne the brunt of the current downturn. If those school teachers aren't buying more houses, construction workers are still going to take a while to find work. Keynesians like to claim that even digging holes and filling them is better than doing nothing because it gets money into the economy. But the main effect can be to raise the wages of ditch-diggers with limited effects outside that sector.

Second, Hayek highlighted the Fed's role in the business cycle. Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan's artificially low rates of 2002-2004 played a crucial role in inflating the housing bubble and distorting other investment decisions. Current monetary policy postpones the adjustments needed to heal the housing market.

Third, as Hayek contended in "The Road to Serfdom," political freedom and economic freedom are inextricably intertwined. In a centrally planned economy, the state inevitably infringes on what we do, what we enjoy, and where we live. When the state has the final say on the economy, the political opposition needs the permission of the state to act, speak and write. Economic control becomes political control.

Even when the state tries to steer only part of the economy in the name of the "public good," the power of the state corrupts those who wield that power. Hayek pointed out that powerful bureaucracies don't attract angels—they attract people who enjoy running the lives of others. They tend to take care of their friends before taking care of others. And they find increasing that power attractive. Crony capitalism shouldn't be confused with the real thing.

The fourth timely idea of Hayek's is that order can emerge not just from the top down but from the bottom up. The American people are suffering from top-down fatigue. President Obama has expanded federal control of health care. He'd like to do the same with the energy market. Through Fannie and Freddie, the government is running the mortgage market. It now also owns shares in flagship American companies. The president flouts the rule of law by extracting promises from BP rather than letting the courts do their job. By increasing the size of government, he has left fewer resources for the rest of us to direct through our own decisions.

Hayek understood that the opposite of top-down collectivism was not selfishness and egotism. A free modern society is all about cooperation. We join with others to produce the goods and services we enjoy, all without top-down direction. The same is true in every sphere of activity that makes life meaningful—when we sing and when we dance, when we play and when we pray. Leaving us free to join with others as we see fit—in our work and in our play—is the road to true and lasting prosperity. Hayek gave us that map.

Despite the caricatures of his critics, Hayek never said that totalitarianism was the inevitable result of expanding government's role in the economy. He simply warned us of the possibility and the costs of heading in that direction. We should heed his warning. I don't know if we're on the road to serfdom, but wherever we're headed, Hayek would certainly counsel us to turn around.

from the WSJ


Karen DeCoster responds:

My only complaint about the article is that Roberts refuses to acknowledge that, yes, centralizing power within the federal government does lead to totalitarianism. Roberts also states, “I don’t know if we’re on the road to serfdom…”, and my response is that we are already well down that road, and it’s ludicrous to say otherwise.

Friday, October 31, 2008

Crisis of 2008

People ask me if the current mess feels like 1929. But the right comparison is 1932, when Herbert Hoover was desperately trying anything, anything at all, to get the economy going. The stock market had crashed. The economy was starting to follow it down. So what did Hoover and his fellow policy makers do?...

Today, President George W. Bush plays the role of Hoover, the so-called free market ideologue who is trying anything to avert disaster. He signs a $700 billion bill putting Treasury in charge of buying troubled assets. A week later, the money is used to partially nationalize the banks. Some companies, like Bear Stearns, are bailed out. Others, like Lehman Brothers, are not. Some companies are sold. Some are allowed to fail. There is no plan, no rules, nothing to count on...

A recession is coming (or has already arrived) no matter what happens in Washington. The question is whether the attempt to forestall it is going to make it worse and turn it into another Great Depression...

Unfortunately, there is no consensus about a preferable alternative. The economists are almost as clueless as the politicians. At such a time, inaction may be the wisest course of action.

read the WSJ article

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Blame

Somebody asked me the other day—whose fault is it that Freddie and Fannie are on the ropes? Is it the fault of the greedy execs? Inadequate monitoring and oversight? Did Congress mess up?
I actually think this is an emergent mess that evolved out of no one's design. An alliance of bootleggers and baptists that created something that was no one's intention but that served many people well until it fell apart. It's a study in flawed incentives and institutional design. The lesson is that government agencies work best when we know what they're doing and there is some measure of accountability, even if it's only political.

read the entire post

Bootleggers and Baptists: (Pigs Don't Fly: The Economic Way of Thinking about Politics )

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

More on Fannie and Freddie

Following its knee-jerk, free-market, Milton Friedman obsessed ideology, the Bush Administration has seized control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Joke. A bad one, really. If anything, this is just the latest evidence that it doesn't matter who's President. Is there anything this administration has done lately that reflects a free market philosophy? Yet because the administration sometimes uses the rhetoric of economic freedom, it allows people to paint the administrations policies as market-oriented.

read more

My thoughts: Roberts nailed it. Rhetoric v. reality. The Bush administration has never been a supporter of free markets.

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Free Trade and Trade Deficits

I was asked the other day by a reporter if NAFTA had been a good thing or a bad thing for America. I said that both the proponents and opponents of NAFTA had no legitimate, unassailable or even suggestive, statistical evidence on their side. I said it was absurd to think that in a $14 trillion economy, you could tease out the impact of increased trade with Mexico and Canada and disentangle it from the thousands of other changes going on.

I suggested that anyone who provided an empirical case for or against the agreement was essentially being dishonest--using statistics selectively to make the case for a pre-existing world-view.

The reporter found this viewpoint unacceptable. Surely, he said, economics can help us answer the question of whether NAFTA has been good for America or bad. Or at least good or bad, for say Ohio.

I said no, there was no empirical evidence that would be decisive. It isn't just that it's hard to measure the net impact precisely. I argued that it can't be measured....

So I'm sorry I can't be more helpful. But I do think economics has a lot to say in helping us understand the effects of increased trade. It just doesn't come from the bottom line of an empirical study.

read the entire post



Does Free Trade Destroy Jobs?
Russell Roberts (11/06)

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Recommended Reading: Russell Roberts on Economic Stimulus

Love that word—stimulus. It sounds so scientific...

Sounds like the perfect prescription for an ailing economy.

But if politicians know how to stimulate the economy, why wait for a recession? If you can make the economy grow, why wait for bad times?...

Maybe we don't know how to make a $14 trillion economy move very quickly. And if we did, it would take a lot more than an injection of even 125 billion dollars...

The standard stimulus package doesn't change incentives. It's a check from the government. The hope is that the receiver will spend it. But when you just send out checks from the government, whoever gets stimulated is likely to be offset by someone who gets unstimulated.

The money has to come from somewhere....

I'm not saying that economy policy is irrelevant. Economic policy matters because it affects the long-run growth of the economy. I'm all for policies that make us more productive or innovative by changing incentives. But those policies take time. There's little any economic doctor can do to move our $14 trillion organism of an economy in the next few months.
read the entire article

Central planning does not work