Options
Stimulus or Sedative?
· Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Abraham Lincoln once asked an audience how many legs a dog has, if you called the tail a leg? When the audience said "five," Lincoln corrected them, saying that the answer was four. "The fact that you call a tail a leg does not make it a leg."
That same principle applies today. The fact that politicians call something a "stimulus" does not make it a stimulus. The fact that they call something a "jobs bill" does not mean there will be more jobs.
What have been the actual consequences of all the hundreds of billions of dollars that the government has spent? The idea behind the spending is that it will cause investors to invest, lenders to lend and employers to employ.
That was called "pump priming." To get a pump going, people put a little water into it, so that the pump will start pumping out a lot of water. In other words, government money alone was never supposed to restore the economy by itself. It was supposed to get the private sector spending, lending, investing and employing.
The question is: Is that what has actually happened?
The stimulus spending started back in 2008, during the Bush administration, and has continued under the Obama administration, so it has had plenty of time to show what it can do.
After the Bush administration's stimulus spending in 2008, business spending on equipment and software fell-- not rose-- by 28 percent. Spending on durable goods fell 22 percent.
What about the banks? Four months after the Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP) poured billions of dollars into the banks, the biggest recipients of that money made 23 percent fewer loans than before. A year later, the credit extended by American banks as a whole was down-- not up-- by more than $20 billion.
Spending in general was down. The velocity of circulation of money fell faster than it had in half a century.
Just two weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal reported, "U.S. banks posted last year their sharpest decline in lending since 1942." You can call it a stimulus, if you want to, just as you can call a tail a leg. But the actual effect of what is called a "stimulus" has been more like that of a sedative.
Why aren't the banks lending, with all that money sitting there gathering dust?
You don't lend when politicians are making it more doubtful whether you are going to get your money back-- either on time or at all. From the White House to Capitol Hill, politicians are coming up with all sorts of bright ideas for borrowers not to have to pay back what they borrowed and for lenders not to be able to foreclose on people who are months behind on their mortgage payments.
President Obama keeps telling us that he is "creating jobs." But more and more Americans have no jobs. The unemployment rate has declined slightly, but only because many people have stopped looking for jobs. You are only counted as unemployed if you are still looking for a job.
If all the unemployed people were to decide that it is hopeless and stop looking for work, the unemployment statistics would drop like a rock. But that would hardly be a solution.
What is going on, that nothing seems to work?
None of this is new. What is going on is what went on during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Money circulated more slowly during the 1930s than during the 1920s. Banks lent out a smaller proportion of the money they had on hand during the 1930s than they did in the 1920s. Anti-business rhetoric and anti-business policies did not create business confidence then, any more than it does now. Economists have estimated that the New Deal prolonged the depression by several years.
This is not another Great Depression, at least not yet, and the economy may recover on its own, if the government will let it. But Obama today, like FDR in the 1930s, cannot leave the economy alone. Both have felt a need to come up with one bright idea after another, to "do something."
The theory is that, if one thing doesn't work, it is just a matter of trying another. But, in an atmosphere where nobody knows what the federal government is going to come up with next, people tend to hang on to their money until they have some idea of what the rules of the game are going to be.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.
Options
Subscribe
Constitutional Scholar Dr. Alan Keyes reads The Patriot Post: "The Patriot recalls the noble tradition of our Founders. 'Publius' would have admired and endorsed The Patriot Post, as do I." It's Right. It's Free. Subscribe now!
The Right Opinion
- Arnold Ahlert: CPAC Braces for Union & Occupier Chaos
- Michael Reagan: A Little More Heat
- George Will: GOP's Murky Rhetoric on National Defense
- Larry Elder: Aren't Republicans Supposed to Be Colorblind?
- Thomas Sowell: The Anti-Romney Vote
- Ann Coulter: Plutocrat Dems Attack Romney as 'Richie Rich'
- Burt Prelutsky: Was Idi Amin Smarter Than Martha Stewart?
- L. Brent Bozell: The Secular Media vs. Religious Liberty
- R. Emmett Tyrrell: The Delousing of a Movement
- Jonah Goldberg: Liberals are the True Aggressors in Culture Wars
- Cal Thomas: Fudging the Numbers
- Michael Barone: GOP Must Convince Young People It's the Party of Options
Grassroots Commentary
Policy and Analysis
- Heritage Foundation Insider
- Heritage Foundation Research
- American Enterprise Institute
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- The Cato Institute
- Hoover Institution
- National Rifle Association
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- The Heartland Institute
Our Mission
"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!






















Self Reliant
The greatest antagonistic weapon the Citizens have is to protect their assets and wealth. The clowns in Washington can rant and rave, and promise and threaten--even throw their own kind under the proverbial bus (Massa), but they cannot force the Citizens to go spending like idiots in order to nudge the economic indicators upward. Unfortunately for the Citizens, we are trying to communicate with a pig, a feral one at that, which results in the Citizens becoming extremely frustrated and really, really annoying to the piggish gov't. For anyone who wants to argue that it is or isn't about power, consider that these "elected" anti-Americans could simply go to work everyday, sit on their hands and do nothing to earn their paycheck (we'd be delighted if they did!), but they don't either have the intelligence to realize how easy their paycheck comes or they are vehemently intent on shoving their perceived elitism upon the very Citizens who are by design the true government. It's power and power alone.
Posted March 9, 2010 at 11:49:54 AM
MichaelSSEC
Precisely! They cannot resist the urge to fiddle with the economy -- a thing that to the extent the political class understands it all, their understanding is completely wrong -- because they adhere to the Piety Myth (or Piety Fallacy). The Obama administration has stated the Piety Myth many times as they pushed this or that foolish policy upon us. "We must pass this bailout/stimulus bill because we can't just do nothing."
But the choices available to us aren't simply "spend zillions of dollars on terribly ill-advised programs or do nothing at all." There is a wide range of actions in between that we might take, and some of them are actually good, effective courses of action rather than just blindly pumping borrowed money into the problem.
Not only does the false dichotomy ignore the range of choices between the two extremes, it also assumes whatever actions we take can have only two possible effects: they can work or they can do nothing. But there's a third possible outcome -- they can make things worse. Even MUCH worse. And when the "solution" is to go on a wild spending spree using money we don't even have and further tampering with lending rules so that nobody has confidence in the economy, "much worse" is by far the likeliest result.
These concepts are not difficult. We can get them across to anybody in 5 minutes. Moreover, it's utterly inconceivable that our politicians have never heard these facts before, so they are willfully ignoring reality when they engage in these self-destructive spending sprees. What do we do with leaders who intentionally ignore reality?
We fire them.
Posted March 9, 2010 at 7:06:49 PM