Ideal Taxes Association

Raymond Richman       -       Jesse Richman       -       Howard Richman

 Richmans' Trade and Taxes Blog



Prof. Blinder Believes He and Obama are Keynesians But Keynes Would Disown Them
Raymond Richman, 7/19/2010

In the Wall Street Journal 7-19-10, Alan S. Blinder, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University writes in an opinion piece entitled “Obama’s Fiscal Priorities Are Right”, writes: that the “deficit hawks” believe the federal budget deficit is already too large and that the first stimulus failed.  He disagrees. He writes, “The hawks have even dug in their heels against extending unemployment insurance benefits at a time when the unemployment rate is 9.5%, or helping states and localities avoid laying off teachers in September. That’s pretty anti-Keynesian thinking.” The first part is not even true; the Republican leadership wants Congress to specify the source of the funds. Why not the Tarp program or the economic stimulus bill? They are loaded with billions of unspent funds. Why are the Democrats against specifying the source of the funds? And while it may not be popular in the polls to say so, many economists believe, that many, not all, receiving unemployment compensation are really not making a serious effort to find work. And these economists could be Keynesians and they include Prof. Blinder.  Prof. Blinder’s answer later in his piece is that “the right level of unemployment insurance means balancing these costs and benefits—a  tricky calculation.”

As for school districts that the economic stimulus plan is supporting, not a single new job has been created supporting them. Yes, Prof. Blinder, we believe the economic stimulus bill has been a failure. We believe the money should have been used to stimulate private investment in new factories and equipment. New factories create sustained employment and have a real multiplier effect.

In fact, we agree with Keynes about trade. Keynes wrote that he would be in favor of tariffs if the UK’s trading partners were pursuing beggar-thy-neighbor policies, putting Englishmen out of work. Prof. Blinder is a free trader and has ignored the closing of thousands of American factories and the firing of millions of manufacturing workers by countries imposing artificial barriers to our exports. Here is what the Professor has to say: “The TV manufacturing industry really started here, and at one point employed many workers. But as TV sets became ‘just a commodity,’ their production moved offshore to locations with much lower wages. And nowadays the number of television sets manufactured in the U.S. is zero. A failure? No, a success.” (Italics mine.) Looks like Prof. Blinder only supports Keynesian policies that don’t work. Like Keynes we would impose a tariff on imports from those countries with which we have been experiencing chronic trade deficits. It would stimulate manufacturing in this country.

He argues that $1 given as an increase in unemployment benefits is a greater stimulus to the economy than a $1 tax cut to someone earning $5 million. Pres. G.W. Bush gave every taxpaying household a $500 rebate and Pres. Obama gave every household a similar rebate. Neither stimulated the economy. All the rebates for energy-saving appliances and insulation, payments for klunkers, had any stimulating effect. The truth is that spending money foolishly does not stimulate the economy. Keynesians like Blinder believes it does not matter what the borrowed money is spent on, it will have a multiplier effect. The only real experiment was Roosevelt’s New Deal and it was a complete failure. Not until American industry started to produce new products like tanks, and ships, and jeeps, and guns did the U.S. economy take off. And in 1946, Keynesians and leftists said capitalism had no future. They gave up but businessmen did not and we had an economic boom.

Prof. Blinder recommends what Obama has proposed, reversing the tax cuts on households making more than $250,000 per year and spending the increased revenues estimated at $75 billion over the next two years and spend it on unemployment benefits, food stamps and the like. He states it would add almost $100 billion to aggregate demand over the same period.  “That translates to about 500,000 more jobs each year.” He makes no mention of the fact that the trade deficits of $500 to $800 billion per year have cost us 5 to 8 million jobs. As a free trader he has no solution. He does not believe we should fabricate “commodities” like  television sets again. How about trucks that run on natural gas with which we are blessed? Are those commodities? Prof. Blinder may think he is a Keynesian. But he advocates policies that would make Lord Keynes roll over in his ashes on Tilton Downs.

 
 

.  

Your Name:

Post a Comment:




  • Richmans' Blog    RSS
  • Our New Book - Balanced Trade
  • Buy Trading Away Our Future
  • Read Trading Away Our Future
  • Richmans' Commentaries
  • ITA Working Papers
  • ITA on Facebook
  • Contact Us

    Archive
    Feb 2017
    Jan 2017
    Dec 2016
    Nov 2016
    Oct 2016
    Sep 2016
    Aug 2016
    Jul 2016
    Jun 2016
    May 2016
    Apr 2016
    Mar 2016
    Feb 2016
    Jan 2016
    Dec 2015
    Nov 2015
    Oct 2015
    Sep 2015
    Aug 2015
    Jul 2015
    Jun 2015
    May 2015
    Apr 2015
    Mar 2015
    Feb 2015
    Jan 2015
    Dec 2014
    Nov 2014
    Oct 2014
    Sep 2014
    Aug 2014
    Jul 2014
    Jun 2014
    May 2014
    Apr 2014
    Mar 2014
    Feb 2014
    Jan 2014
    Dec 2013
    Nov 2013
    Oct 2013
    Sep 2013
    Aug 2013
    Jul 2013
    Jun 2013
    May 2013
    Apr 2013
    Mar 2013
    Feb 2013
    Jan 2013
    Dec 2012
    Nov 2012
    Oct 2012
    Sep 2012
    Aug 2012
    Jul 2012
    Jun 2012
    May 2012
    Apr 2012
    Mar 2012
    Feb 2012
    Jan 2012
    Dec 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010

    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories:
    Book Reviews
    Capital Gains Taxation
    Corporate Income Tax
    Consumption Taxes
    Economy - Long Term

    Economy - Short Term
    Environmental Regulation
    Real Estate Taxation
    Trade
    Miscellaneous

    Outside Links:

  • American Economic Alert
  • American Jobs Alliance
  • Angry Bear Blog
  • Economy in Crisis
  • Econbrowser
  • Emmanuel Goldstein's Blog
  • Levy Economics Institute
  • McKeever Institute
  • Michael Pettis Blog
  • Naked Capitalism
  • Natural Born Conservative
  • Science & Public Policy Inst.
  • TradeReform.org
  • Votersway Blog
  • Watt's Up With That


    Wikipedia:

  • [An] extensive argument for balanced trade, and a program to achieve balanced trade is presented in Trading Away Our Future, by Raymond Richman, Howard Richman and Jesse Richman. “A minimum standard for ensuring that trade does benefit all is that trade should be relatively in balance.” [Balanced Trade entry]

    Journal of Economic Literature:

  • [Trading Away Our Future] Examines the costs and benefits of U.S. trade and tax policies. Discusses why trade deficits matter; root of the trade deficit; the “ostrich” and “eagles” attitudes; how to balance trade; taxation of capital gains; the real estate tax; the corporate income tax; solving the low savings problem; how to protect one’s assets; and a program for a strong America....

    Atlantic Economic Journal:

  • In Trading Away Our Future   Richman ... advocates the immediate adoption of a set of public policy proposal designed to reduce the trade deficit and increase domestic savings.... the set of public policy proposals is a wake-up call... [February 17, 2009 review by T.H. Cate]