Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Big Rate Cuts and Fiscal Stimulus Trump Conservative Ideology

By Mark Weisbrot, AlterNet. Posted January 22, 2008.


Like Nixon said, "We're all Keynesians now."
Mark Weisbrot

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also by Mark Weisbrot

The IMF's Going Down -- Is that a Bad Thing?
Thanks to disasters of its own making, the agency is losing money and influence.
May 1, 2008

The Audacity of Populism
If Obama convinces white working-class voters that he cares about their economic plight, he will become the 44th President of the United States.
Apr 7, 2008

A Question of Values: Drug Patent Laws Must Have Public Health Exceptions
Big Pharma is up in arms about developing countries importing less expensive generic versions of their drugs.
Mar 25, 2008

More stories by Mark Weisbrot

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

It was 1971 when Richard Nixon, a conservative, uttered the famous phrase "We are all Keynesians Now. " But there was a backlash soon to follow, with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher changing the world as perhaps no two other people did in the 20th century. Ronald Reagan's "supply-side economics" was never taken seriously in the economics profession -- even at the height of his influence there was barely a handful of economists that would lend their names to it. But the economics profession did, in its research at least, throw out many of the insights that had made John Maynard Keynes the most influential economist of the century.

Among these insights was Keynes' explanation that self-regulating markets would not necessarily fix an economy that had fallen into recession, so as to restore growth and full employment. And that government intervention could help do the job that markets could not. This was painfully clear in the middle of the Great Depression, when Keynes put forth the economic theory that became the basis not only of intro economics textbooks (subsequently diluted) but also our modern system of national income accounting. But just as the dogma of the middle ages buried some of what the ancients knew about astronomy, these insights were lost in a right-wing ideological ascendance that infected policy circles and debilitated the social sciences over the last 30 years.

So it is striking to see the most Keynesian response ever to a recession that has not even officially begun (although it may have started - the National Bureau of Economic Research will decide that later). The Fed's three-quarter point cut today was its largest since 1990 and its first move between meetings since 2001 (just following the September 11 attacks). And the markets are anticipating another cut at the Fed's regular policy meeting next week - perhaps as much as half a point. The Fed will most likely be afraid to disappoint.

This is the negative aspect of the Fed's actions, which some economists have rightly criticized: its apparent reaction to the stock market. Most Americans do not have any significant investment in the stock market, even in retirement accounts; and when stocks are overvalued then it is good for them to come down. The stock market is not the economy, and the Fed -- which so foolishly ignored the world's biggest bubble when the stock market was engulfed in a speculative excess in the late 1990s -- should not be using monetary policy to defend current stock prices, no matter how many Republican voters and campaign contributors may see this as the nation's top priority.

But the good news, for the people of the United States and the world, is not only that the Fed now finally recognizes how serious a mess we are in, but that it is willing to ignore what is normally the main enemy of conservative central bankers (pardon the redundancy): the threat of any increase in the rate of inflation. The consumer price index is up 4.1 percent over the last year, far beyond Bernanke's target of two percent; and the drop in the dollar can be expected to add more by increasing import prices. But the Fed is ignoring this in order to focus on the threat of a downturn.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: economy, debt, lending crisis, recession, stimulus package, keynesian economics

Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Michigan. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: The Phony Crisis (University of Chicago Press, 2000), and has written numerous research papers on economic policy. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Jan 23, 2008 3:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In history books 50 years from now the collapse of the global economic order and the name George W. Bush will be inextricably linked. It's too bad we couldn't have gotten rid of him sooner.

A Vote of Confidence Amendment will enable the American voting public to dismiss and hold over for criminal prosecution any elected official who fails in their obligation to serve the people of the United States.

VOCA, now

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Terrorist Posted by: CatDad
Stimulus Wolves & Sheep
Posted by: LookOut on Jan 23, 2008 4:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Private central bankers have never been "conservative" and neither was Nixon (ask Madeleine Duncan Brown among others). He was just another a delivery boy for organized corporate extortion. To buy the message or sing the praises of "Lord" Maynard Keynes is silly as making Bernanke or his predecessor Sir “Bubbles” Greenspan into pop runway models.

The coming debacle is hardly a surprise given the snake oil boom-bust nature of the fiat Fascist Mafia that has looted and gutted the global economy since before the "Federal Reserve" swindle was stream-rolled into law after the Gilded Age.

I almost wish I could believe the pap this column puts out.

But Santa left the building a long time ago.

(Even he wouldn’t swallow this Kool-Aid sop)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Stimulus Wolves & Sheep Posted by: yellow
One can only hope
Posted by: JSquercia on Jan 23, 2008 6:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One can only hope that the bad economy and an unpopular war WILL render the Republicans into a PERMANENT minority party . This is a fate they richly desrve .
I agree that the idea of rate cuts to save Wall Street is NOT always in the best interest of the Country . As the article pointed out the last set initiated by Greenspan merely created the housing Bubble . Seniors will be especially hard hit with the miniscule returns on their CD's reduced to nothing . I have a Passbook account that currently pays 1/4 of a percent . I imagine now they will charge me for having it . What is truly galling about the pittance they pay on these Savings instruments is that the amounts are considered
"Taxable Income" in spite of the fact that based on inflation you have actually LOST value

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: One can only hope Posted by: poppop_schell
» WRONG Posted by: Melvin
It's WHICH Americans that count
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jan 23, 2008 6:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Most Americans do not have any significant investment in the stock market"

That is so true, and I could never understand why there was such an obsession with the stock market. Until I realized that it's not the number of people who depend on "stocks" for making money but WHO the people are. And that "Who" are the members of the plutocratic/autocratic minority who really run this country. They don't give a rat's ass about the other 90% scum out there.

Sure--we were all raised on the sacred principle of "one man, one vote". Unfortunately the the politicians and deciders in our government don't count the votes, they weigh them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The theories of Keyes has brought on this meltdown
Posted by: poppop_schell on Jan 23, 2008 7:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A real undxerstanding of debt and the Federal Reserve System is discussed by only ONE candidate.

RonPaul2008.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Too bad the social con fundies aren't waking up to this mess.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 23, 2008 7:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For all their energy wasted on guns, abortion, god, gays, terrorism, flag-burning, etc ..., they would do better to direct it towards the Big Business hucksters already fucking this country to death.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GIMMEE!
Posted by: GarrisonPayneLeonard38H on Jan 23, 2008 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before the series of panics that culminated in the Great Depression of 1929, the Street, its hangers-on and its clones operated in a zone free of rules (aside from "grab it and RUN"). Ethics and honesty were regarded as illnesses that could be cured.

The Greed Culture grumbled plenty when FDR and Congress began to put them in their place -- even tried a military coup, according to Gen. Smedley Butler -- but they ultimately had to swallow government regulation, since the alternative was general revolution.

Because even a little bit of greed screams louder than a whole lot of sense, once the Reaganites took power, they began trashing our ability to control our money addicts. Now we again find ourselves in the kind of wretched state that always follows when the addicts are given control of the asylum.

What remains after Reaganites, Clintonites, Gingrichites, and Bushites have had their successive ways with the rules can be boiled down to a few simple guidelines:
1. GIMMEE!
2. GIMMEE, GIMMEE!!
3. If any group of investor-class parasites faces loss of The Precious, then Government must socialize the risk.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Author makes the usual mistakes
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Jan 23, 2008 9:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For staters, the present version of CPI is a measure of exactly nothing. It's a fiction. The real CPI published by Shadow Government Statistics is around 8 percent and not 4.1 percent.

Regarding the Fed's choice of a "temporary" abandonment of inflation fighting, the Fed has NEVER fought inflation (except maybe under Paul Volker's regime). Since it's beginning, the dollar has lost nearly 98 percent of it's purchasing power. Great job, Fed!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A Confederacy of Greed Posted by: thoughtcriminal
OK, here's the deal
Posted by: willymack on Jan 23, 2008 11:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our lives, society, and economy are UNSUSTAINABLE and due for a fall. This is true throughout the "civilized" world; not just here. A lot of innocent people will be hurt as the fight for our remaining natural resources will boil over, then explode. Asking those in the "rich" countries to voluntarily begin more frugal and enviornmentally friendly lives will not work as they'll wait for an instant, miracle cure, and when that doesn't arrive,they'll be forced to act responsibly, but only after a tragic period of war betrayal, and starvation runs its course. The people with the most to lose will vainly attempt to keep what they have, until they, too are consumed by the tide of events almost sure to come. This all might be prevented, but only if we wake up and choose truthful and morally upright people to lead and advise us and PARTICIPATE in our governance. Considering the current state of ignorance, sloth, and apathy on the part of our people, this doesn't seem likely, does it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The problem with Keynes (and Friedman for that matter):
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 23, 2008 12:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's called the GDP, or the Gross Domestic Product, which is indeed a Keynesian concept - and a highly misleading one. It's not as misleading as the Milton Friedman approach, but neither one is worth much.

The Keynesian concept is that consumer spending is the most important thing - a notion that promotes gross overconsumption in the United States (5% of the world's population consuming 25% of the world's resources). The Gross Domestic Product is a measure of consumer spending - so, according to this convoluted idea, the more money that is spent, the better. Get sick and go to a hospital - up goes the GDP! Clear cut a forest, strip mine a meadow - up goes the GDP!

The Friedman concept is that business investment is the most important thing - thus "Reaganomics", capital gains tax cuts for the wealthy, and so on. These economists have tried to modify the GDP to include what they call "business investments" in the GDP.

However, the whole field of modern economics - both Keynesian and Friedmanian - is bogus. Keynesian economists tend to have somewhat fairer social policies than Reaganomics supporters, but that doesn't mean that their theories have any connection to reality.

Modern economics is little more than a scam designed to promote corporate interests. The Nobel Prize in Economics is just one more example of this.

See "Nobel descendant slams Economics prize, Sweden 2005"

"Nobel despised people who cared more about profits than society's well-being, Peter says, reiterating his vehement criticism of the Nobel Economics Prize which he says Alfred Nobel would never have created."

The problem with the viewpoint expressed in this Alternet article is evident in this quote:

"The details of the stimulus remain to be worked out, and of course it will be better if the stimulus is targeted toward those who need it most and will spend it."

That's not the way to go about it! People should be encouraged to save money, to be fiscally conservative, and to put their money into things like renewable energy (how about a credit program for that?) - not to use their homes as sources of equity for easy lines of credit - which is what got us into this mess in the first place!

The notion that giving people money to spend at WalMart will somehow benefit everyone is ludicrous. A hike in the minimum wage would be far more appropriate, anyway - as would canceling all the trade deals that have resulted in the global outsourcing of U.S. jobs to Third World sweatshops - but notice how NO ONE is discussing that. (*except Edwards and Kucinich). No, this "stimulus package" is all about bailouts for the wealthy and the upper middle class.

Look at what's happened. Betty decided to buy a new home, or to get a loan based on the home she already owns. After talking to the broker, she decides that she will get the loan, and then have the house re-appraised in a few years, in the belief that the assessor will increase the value of her home, allowing her to re-finance the loan based on her increased equity - or to take out another loan. How long can you keep playing that game before the whole thing collapses? Based on the current collapse, ten years seems to be about the limit.

For efforts to introduce better economic theories based on physical reality, see the following:
1) Stiglitz says GDP may be poor indicator of economy
2) Redefining Progress: The Genuine Progress Indicator

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ok. Here's the REAL deal: There's a 30% chance of snow...
Posted by: aka_bozo on Jan 23, 2008 12:34 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
oh wait, wait… wrong random guess.. Ok, here we go...

There once was a president name Johnson, who was succeeded by a president named Nixon BOTH these guys – with the usual congressional doofuses looking on - managed to spend vast quantities of money to invade Vietnam and initiate welfare programs (call the “guns n butter” approach) which then caused massive inflation a decade later. There were riots, pissed off youth, bad hair cuts, and righteous music to torment those who cared to watch (most didn’t). The consensus was “the world is coming to an end”.

However, we’re all still here witnessing the next round of dumb-ass elected sleaze doing the same thing.

So, guess what, “the corporate elite” will pretty much do what they did LAST time. There will be more inflation which will cause some riots, more pissed of youth, MORE bad hair cuts, and MORE righteous music to torment those dumb enough to care.

Life goes on. If you are careful where you live (and go to the restaurant) you’ll be ok. Don’t forget, in “THE GREAT DEPRESSION” (the one where gramps walked barefoot to school, in 11’ of snow, up hill, in both directions) there was 25% unemployment – but there was 75% EMPLOYMENT. Lots of people weren’t affected in the “great depression” too. Start planning NOW, and you won’t be either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

“Lord” Maynard Keynes "(vs)" Friedman, Greenspan, Bernanke, etc (Charlatans All)
Posted by: LookOut on Jan 23, 2008 2:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Economists Keyes and Friedman, etc (read soothsayer charlatans) were funded and partnered with monopolist robber baron oligarchs. Namely the Rockefeller and Rothschild dynasties. Both prompted the snake oil idea of fully rigged Big Brother government from different angles. (Keynes was deeply involved with David Rockefellers’ Word Bank/IMF projects at Bretton Woods and Freidman was promoted out of the Rockefeller funded Chicago School of Economics).

Keynes ersatz notion was that central state planning (cooked Big Brother) through stimulus along with creation of artificial demand by pumping up make-work programs and such would goose the economy forward. This is a quick-fix pipedream that never lasts as it primarily enriches bureaucrats and their Fascist political handlers.

Freidman was a believer in having government (rigged Big Brother) encourage “free markets” and “capitalism” that barely existed in the Gilded Age 1800s as both were crushed at the foisting of a 1913 sham “Federal Reserve” Corp private bank monopoly by American agents of monopolist robber barons J.D. Rockefeller and Lord Rothschild in 1913 (partners JP Morgan, PM Warburg and others) . From then forward the economy was fully gutted by private corporate crime that ran Washington, the media, “education” and all the rest by extortion racket.

So what we have ladies and gents is a fully cooked and fully propagandized system that pretends to be “capitalist” and “democratic” which it hasn’t been since – in FDR’s words – the days of Andrew Jackson.

Interesting that JD Rockefellers father William Avery Rockefeller (alias “Devil Bill”) was a snake oil peddler, horse thief, rapist and bigamist that sold cancer remedies out of a wagon.

His apple never fell far from the tree.



“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.”
President FDR (on de facto Fascist rule in a letter to corporate con man “Colonel” Edward M. House, founder of the Council on Foreign Relations and political fixer for the ruling class. House also handled President Wilson for the foisting of the “Federal Reserve” Corp. 11/21/ l933)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Keynes was an ass Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
Wall Street Loves Big Mummy Gummit
Posted by: left_libertarian on Jan 23, 2008 5:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wall Street cries: Interest Rate Cut Mummmy Fed pLeaaze!!

Yea, they love the 'free market economy.'

Yea, right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't Kid Yourselves, Wall Street Has NO FEAR of a Democrat in the White House
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 23, 2008 6:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't kid yourselves into thinking Wall Street is worried for one minute if it's a Democrat going into the White House and not a Republican. Wall Street has invested heavily in the leading Democratic Candidates. Obama and Hillary have been getting loads of cash from the Street. And, you can bet it comes with a promise that if they are elected, favors will be flowing back. Be it lower capital gains or enhanced tax write-off's, nobody is as dependent as Wall Street on the largesse of government. Therefore, this is overall a good article but sadly mistaken when it alludes to some fear Wall Street has about Dems getting into office. In fact, for Wall Street, Dems might be better then the Repubs., Dem administrations in the past always being friendly to the Street and Dem financial policy is more rational than the Repubs., who run endless deficits that blow apart the value of the dollar.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]