The Fatal Conceit
Print This Post
• Email This Post
• 9 comments • 
Add to favorites Filed Under: Give Me a Break!
Tags: bailout • correction • Howard Baetjer • inflation • interest • maxine waters • multiplier • national debt • peter leeson • recession • steny hoyer • stimulus
Sure, the economy is in bad shape—though the late ’70s and early ’80s were worse in many ways. But is it true that every economist agrees that massive “stimulus” is the solution?
“A failure to act, and act now, will turn a crisis into a catastrophe,” President Obama said.
If someone expresses skepticism, Obama and other political leaders suggest that economists are unanimous in believing that government spending is the only answer.
“We have a consensus that we need a big stimulus package that will jolt the economy back into shape,” Obama said.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer agreed: “Every economist from right to left, Republican, Democrat, advises that it has to be a very substantial package.”
What Consensus?
It’s a lie. There was no consensus. (Anyway, a consensus doesn’t mean something is true.) Finding an economist who opposed government spending as a way to fix the economy was easy. More than 350 signed a petition opposing the bill.
“How is it the government is going to be able to spend a dollar in such a way that it generates a dollar or more in value?” asked George Mason University economist Peter Leeson. “A more likely possibility is that a dollar that government takes out of the private sector is a dollar the private sector doesn’t have to spend.”
Leeson is referring to the “broken-window” fallacy, which comes from Frédéric Bastiat’s story about a boy who throws a rock through a shop window. Since the shopkeeper has to buy a new window, some believe the mischief will actually stimulate the local economy. The fallacy lies in overlooking that the shopkeeper would have spent the money some other way if he didn’t have to replace the window.
Every penny the government spends will first have to be borrowed from someone in the economy—that is, someone already struggling with the recession’s effects on their income, assets, and future planning. So where’s the stimulus?
It’s also quite a conceit to believe that a few men in power are smart enough to know precisely how to spend trillions of your dollars.
“They’re exploiting a minor correction in the economy. . . . Markets go through corrections all the time,” Lydia Ortega of San Jose State University told me.
I pointed out that people say this correction is worse—maybe like the Depression.
“But markets need to go through this correction,” she said. “What’s happening now, what’s making it worse, is that people don’t know what’s going to happen. There’s so much uncertainty generated by the government spending.”
The more the government does, the more private investors wait.
“Part of the reason that people aren’t spending is they don’t know what these characters in Washington are going to do,” says Howard Baetjer of Towson University.
“Japan tried six spending packages in the early 1990s. The result? A decade of lost growth,” points out Ben Powell of Suffolk University. “It’s the government’s own policies that contributed to the bubble. The government’s not the answer to it.”
One Finger in the Dike, Two Crossed
I wanted to ask the bailout’s big boosters about that. Two agreed to talk: Maxine Waters of the House Finance Committee and Majority Leader Hoyer.
Hoyer conceded that he “overstated the case” when he said every economist endorsed government action.
Wasn’t the bubble caused by too much debt?
“No doubt about it.”
So the answer is more debt?
“Most economists believe that’s the case.”
This stimulus spending, is it going to work?
“I hope so.”
Might it cause hyperinflation?
“We hope it doesn’t.”
Well, that’s comforting.
“Government can’t sit and just twiddle its fingers,” Rep. Waters told me. “We have got to interject money into these banks and these systems that help this economy work.”
How are you going to pay for it?
“We have borrowed money before. We continue to borrow money, but we pay it back.”
She left a few things out. Debt means interest payments and higher taxes in the future. It also means inflation when the Fed prints money to reduce the real value of the debt.
But the politicians are confident that they can wisely spend trillions of your dollars. The arrogance of the political class is stunning.








Comment by David J on 18 June 2009:
Great article! Words to live by.
Comment by KurtFolkerth on 20 June 2009:
Good article!
Comment by Hugh M on 22 June 2009:
John Stossel uses his talent and forum like that of a patriot. Thank you, sir!
Comment by Tom Foppiano on 22 June 2009:
Gotta love John Stossel!
Comment by Jonathan Finegold Catalán on 23 June 2009:
I should go to a bank and take out a loan. Then, in one year, I should go back and take out another one.
Banker: “You still have not paid back your first loan.”
Me: “I have taken a loan before, I can take a loan now. I will pay it back.”
I guess when you’re at the head of a monopoly you can do these kind of things. It must be nice.
Comment by Al on 25 June 2009:
Your contention that the stimulus is a waste is right on target. It would be better to do nothing. The dislocations in the market need to be adjusted. However, to say 70s and 80s were worse in many ways or that someone told you that this is a minor correction is outright laughable. Perhaps, things are not as bad now as they were in the depths of the 70s and 80s recession, in a few years I am sure you would change your conclusion. We must pay for the excesses of generations of poor social engineering. There are no more bubbles to burst. When the long bond breaks, you will see vastly higher inflation and interest rates. High interest rates does not bode well for the largest debtor in world history. The government’s tremendous response to the financial crisis was unavoidable. You cannot ask a man to cut off his own arm, even if it has a terminal infection.
Comment by Wayne Westgaard on 7 July 2009:
We need a law that prevents automatic with holding of taxes from paychecks. If the “people” had to write checks to the government every month I am sure people would get the physical sickning reaction and want to stop paying taxes enough to stop the madness.
Comment by Joe Gresham on 15 July 2009:
John is exactly right. Our economic problem is from deficit spending, and we can\’t \"borrow our way out of debt\". This is more basic than basic. A deaf, dumb blind 2 year old should be able to see and comprehend that
Comment by James Madison Fan on 15 July 2009:
The problem is the same problem we had in the Depression: Bad Loans.
Until banks feel secure making good loans no one can buy anything substative.
Until people are secure that their next paycheck will not be their last they are going to pay down their debt in an effort to keep their property rather than incurring debt trying to acquire more property. So even if the banks were wiling to give out loans most people are not interested.
Until banks start lending and people start spending the economy will remain in this trough. If confidence continues to lag it will only get worse.
Obama took the wrong page from Reaganomics. He needs to cut taxes. Not increase govenmental spending.