What’s the biggest economic fallacy on the left? What’s the defining mistake for our statist friends?
One obvious answer is that many of them hold the anti-empirical belief that the economy is a fixed pie and that one person can’t climb the economic ladder unless another person falls a few rungs.
There’s no doubt that the fixed-pie myth is an obstacle to sound thinking, but I’m wondering whether an even bigger problem is the pervasive belief on the left that there are easy shortcuts to prosperity.
Keynesian fiscal policy, for instance, is based on the notion that more growth is just a simple question of having the government spend more money.
And Keynesian monetary policy is based on a similarly simplistic assumption that more growth is generated by having central banks create more money.
To be sure, both policies may seem to work in the short run since people suddenly perceive that they have more money. But perceptions and reality may be different, particularly if the short-run boost in the economy is an illusory bubble.
And that’s why I’m not a big fan of QE-type policies designed to “stimulate” growth with artificially low interest rates.
As I explain in this brief FBN interview, any short-run gain is offset by long-run pain.
And I’m not the only one who has a jaundiced view.
The Wall Street Journal also is not happy with the Federal Reserve, opining that the real economy has stagnated as financial assets have been propped up by easy money.
…the Fed has only itself to blame for its economic and political predicament. …One lesson here is that the Fed’s great monetary experiment since the recession ended in 2009 looks increasingly like a failure. Recall the Fed’s theory that quantitative easing (bond buying) and near-zero interest rates would lift financial assets,
which in turn would lift the real economy. …But while stocks have soared, as have speculative assets like junk bonds and commercial real estate, the real economy hasn’t. This remains the worst economic recovery by far since World War II…the economic expectations of Fed Chairs Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen have been consistently wrong. …the Fed now finds itself caught between a slowing global economy and its promise to begin normalizing rates this year. …One result has been to increase economic uncertainty and market volatility.
Another result is that easy-money policies give politicians an excuse to avoid the real reforms that would boost long-run growth.
I definitely think that’s been a problem in Europe. Politicians keep waiting for magical results from the European Central Bank when the real obstacle to prosperity is a stifling burden of taxation, spending, and regulation.
The bottom line is that politicians all over the world are exacerbating bad fiscal and regulatory policy with bad monetary policy.
To augment this analysis, here’s a video from the Fraser Institute about the insight of Friedrich Hayek, who warned that government intervention, particularly via monetary policy, caused booms and busts by distorting market signals.
Needless to say, last decade’s financial crisis is a case study showing the accuracy of Hayek’s Austrian-school analysis.
But politicians never seem to learn. Or maybe they just don’t care. They focus on the short run (i.e., the next election) and it always feels good when the bubble is expanding.
And when the government-created bubble bursts, they can simply blame greed, or rich people, or find some other scapegoat (and then repeat the same mistakes as soon as the dust settles).
P.S. For a more detailed look at Austrian economics, check out this lecture. And Austrian-school scholars also have the best analysis of the Great Depression.
P.P.S. And for a more conventional critique of easy-money policies, here are some highlights from a speech by a member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee.
[…] crisis, it seems clear that much of that mess was caused by bad government policy, especially easy money from the Federal Reserve and housing subsidies from Fannie Mae and Freddie […]
[…] in 2015, I explained to Neil Cavuto that easy money creates the conditions for a boom-bust […]
[…] crisis, it seems clear that much of that mess was caused by bad government policy, especially easy money from the Federal Reserve and housing subsidies from Fannie Mae and Freddie […]
[…] few years (2012, 2015, 2019), I warn that easy-money policies by the Federal Reserve are […]
[…] few years (2012, 2015, 2019), I warn that easy-money policies by the Federal Reserve are […]
[…] I focused on explaining the risks of bad monetary policy, especially the way that central banks (and other government policies) create boom-bust cycles in […]
[…] bad monetary policy causes a financial bubble or housing bubble, shifting to good monetary policy presumably will lead to short-run pain as […]
[…] low interest rates. That’s because the Keynesian approach produces a short-run “sugar high” that seems […]
[…] Today, we’ll make up for that oversight, starting with this cartoon strip about the Federal Reserve’s easy-money policy. […]
[…] Obama on that issue. Simply stated, I think both of them pursued a misguided Keynesian approach of easy moneyand artificially low interest rates, but we don’t have firm evidence (yet) of negative […]
[…] Obama on that issue. Simply stated, I think both of them pursued a misguided Keynesian approach of easy moneyand artificially low interest rates, but we don’t have firm evidence (yet) of negative […]
[…] Obama on that issue. Simply stated, I think both of them pursued a misguided Keynesian approach of easy money and artificially low interest rates, but we don’t have firm evidence (yet) of negative […]
[…] As I’ve previously noted, bubbles always feel good when they’re expanding. They don’t feel so good when they […]
[…] Independientemente de si un político es republicano o demócrata, no me gusta la política fiscal keynesiana y no me gusta la política monetaria keynesiana. […]
[…] I said in the interview, I worry there’s a bubble caused by an easy-money approach. And bad things happen when bubbles […]
[…] That being said, it’s generally safe to assume that downturns are caused by bad economic policy, especially the Federal Reserve’s boom-bust monetary policy. […]
[…] In this interview from yesterday, I specifically warn that easy money can lead to economically harmful asset bubbles. […]
[…] Regardless of whether a politician is a Republican or a Democrat, I don’t like Keynesian fiscal policy and I don’t like Keynesian monetary policy. […]
[…] about market instability and put much of the blame on the Federal Reserve. Simply stated, I fear we have a bubble thanks to years and years (and years and years) of easy money and artificially low interest […]
[…] P.S. In the interview, I said monetary policy might deserve some of the blame if the economy turns south. I want to stress, however, that I’m not blaming the Fed for trying to “normalize” today. Instead, the problem is all the easy-money policy earlier this decade. […]
[…] instance, what if the economy is in a false boom caused by easy money? If that leads to a recession, will they want Trump to take the […]
[…] central banks use monetary policy to keep interest rates low (“Keynesian monetary policy,” also known as “easy money” or “quantitative easing”), it can cause […]
[…] central banks use monetary policy to keep interest rates low (“Keynesian monetary policy,” but also known as “easy money” or “quantitative easing”), that can […]
[…] America than most other places, but you still worry whether easy-money policies from the Fed have created a bubble in financial […]
[…] a downturn as they take office. In many cases, such a downturn is baked in the cake thanks to bad monetary policy before they ever took […]
[…] a few other factors also are important (central bankers should avoid irresponsible monetary policy, for instance), but some of these are outside the direct control of […]
[…] you can see, I discussed the benefits of pro-growth reforms, but also warned that monetary policy is the wild card and also admitted that economists are lousy […]
[…] America than most other places, but you still worry whether easy-money policies from the Fed have created a bubble in financial […]
[…] hope the Fed is successful, though I worry that financial markets (and housing markets) have become dependent on easy money and will take a […]
[…] was rather weak. And when people responded by pointing to a reasonably strong stock market, I expressed concern that easy-money policies might be creating an artificial […]
[…] was rather weak. And when people responded by pointing to a reasonably strong stock market, I expressed concern that easy-money policies might be creating an artificial […]
[…] bubbles fueled by the easy-money policies of central […]
[…] policies (such as artificially low interest rates) have created a bubble. And bursting bubbles can be very messy, as we learned (or should have learned) in 2008. The Federal Reserve supposedly is in the process […]
[…] add another point. I suspect that big income gains for the rich in recent years are the result of easy-money policies from the Federal Reserve, which have – at least in part – pushed up the value of […]
[…] Assuming we’re looking at genuine and durable increases in stock values (rather than a bubble), that’s a reflection of a growing economy, which translates into more income for […]
[…] many factors that determine a nation’s economic success, including trade policy, regulation, monetary policy, and rule of law, so a good tax code isn’t a guarantor of prosperity and a bad tax system […]
[…] European Central Bank is now buying lots of government bonds as part of 1) a foolish experiment in monetary Keynesianism, and 2) an indirect bailout of dodgy governments. Any banks with competent management will have […]
[…] being said, we can set aside the issue of Keynesian monetary policy because the main thrust of the article is an embrace of Keynesian fiscal […]
[…] being said, we can set aside the issue of Keynesian monetary policy because the main thrust of the article is an embrace of Keynesian fiscal […]
[…] European Central Bank is now buying lots of government bonds as part of 1) a foolish experiment in monetary Keynesianism, and 2) an indirect bailout of dodgy governments. Any banks with competent management will have […]
[…] for the financial crisis, even though places such as the Cayman Islands had nothing to do with the Fed’s easy-money policy or with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac […]
[…] addition to lots of misguided Keynesian fiscal policy, there’s been a radical form of Keynesian monetary policy from the Bank of […]
[…] addition to lots of misguided Keynesian fiscal policy, there’s been a radical form of Keynesian monetary policy from the Bank of […]
[…] two big factors are easy-money monetary policies that artificially push up the value of financial assets (thus helping the rich) and redistribution […]
[…] two big factors are easy-money monetary policies that artificially push up the value of financial assets (thus helping the rich) and redistribution […]
[…] two big factors are easy-money monetary policies that artificially push up the value of financial assets (thus helping the rich) and redistribution […]
[…] puzzle. The burden of government spending also is important, as is trade policy, regulatory policy, monetary policy, property rights, and the rule of […]
[…] Politicians in America and elsewhere engaged in several years of Keynesian spending when the downturn began in 2008. That didn’t work. In more recent years, they’ve been engaging in lots of Keynesian monetary policy, and that hasn’t been working either. […]
[…] Politicians in America and elsewhere engaged in several years of Keynesian spending when the downturn began in 2008. That didn’t work. In more recent years, they’ve been engaging in lots of Keynesian monetary policy, and that hasn’t been working either. […]
[…] the option to engage in Keynesian monetary policy also gives politicians an excuse to avoid the reforms that actually would boost economic […]
[…] pervasive intervention in the price system can screw up an entire economy. Indeed, I suspect only bad monetary policy is capable of inflicting a greater level of […]
[…] economy is a fixed pie and the second overlooks the fact that government intervention almost always deserves the blame for downturns and […]
[…] economy is a fixed pie and the second overlooks the fact that government intervention almost always deserves the blame for downturns and […]
[…] economy is a fixed pie and the second overlooks the fact that government intervention almost always deserves the blame for downturns and […]
Dan, this was an excellent piece; better than the “good stuff” you generally publish.
You, who has to live and survive in D.C., do not have the luxury to be as direct as one who does not live within the “Beltway”. Nonetheless, words will never change the fed.gov nor its actors. More Revolutionary methodologies are required, as astutely opined by Jefferson, “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” The USSA [sic] is long overdue for that readjustment. (Note: The rebellion to which Jefferson referred in that statement was an armed rebellion. He did not mince many words when freedom and liberty were at stake. Nor should you, Dan.)
Finally, no matter what, an economy based on fiat currency has to fail. There are no other options. Failure is the absolute result. Failure is coming; you can bet on it. Only the royal politicians and “the rich” will be unaffected–they are not on a fiat dollar economy.
PS. Those beleaguered by the devolution and oppression sponsored by the pro(re)gressives need to re-read the beginning and the end of the Declaration of Independence. This and the other founding documents were not senior theses nor off the cuff blog comments; they are the product of dozens of men’s life long understanding of governments and their pursuit of freedom and liberty for all countrymen–not a small group of insiders who supported them in an election. Follow the instructions therein and the other founding documents, not the fed.gov and their sinister participants. Hell has no fury like scorned citizens. ©2015 All rights reserved.
@Woolsey The “correct” interest rate is slightly lower than that rate at which average borrowers will no longer use credit for purchases. (Despite Mitchell’s admirable understanding, he is much too sweet towards the felons in Washington.) There are “interferers” who push, or undermine, the floating rate, depending on the angle they are working.
For example, the unconstitutional Federal Reserve is printing illegal fiat dollars such that they are pushing, offering and maintaining artificially low interest rates … but only to certain preferred insider entities. A.k.a., “politics as usual in the District of Criminals” This is either highly unethical, unconstitutional or blatantly criminal. You choose. Hint: Never trust a politician. [Read that again three times.]
Try and get the corrupt IRS to accept those artificially low fed.res rates on your past due taxes.
Go to your bank and see if they’ll lend for slightly higher than the artificially low fed.res rate–highly unlikely.
They and others are all in the mob of political insiders. You are not. You loose.
Today’s fed.gov and its intuitions are all about robbing the taxpayers’ and their wealth. res ipsa loquitor.
When was the last time Washington or your State government did anything for you? ©2015
PS. The author of this site is not responsible for my opinion nor its content 🙂
What is an “artificially low” interest rate? What is the “correct” interest rate?
I don’t favor interest rate targeting at all, and grant that that there is something “artificial” about interest rates that are targeting rather than allowed to float, but it is a mistake to assume that “unusually low by historical standards” should be taken to be “artificially” low. Looking at the growth path of spending on output, there is reason to instead believe that they are “artificially” too high.
[…] WAIT, THERE’S MORE… […]
[…] danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2015/08/22/bubbles-easy-money-and-free-lunch-monetary-policy/ […]
[…] By Dan Mitchell […]