Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Bartlett’s Taxonomy of Economists

By

  1. “Austrians” like Congressman Ron Paul. By this view, government intervention is “what caused the recession in the first place” and further intervention will only make things worse. Best for government to “allow the economy to readjust, no matter how painfully.”

  2. Monetarists like Milton Friedman. The key for them is to keep the money supply from declining. Bartlett points out that Bernanke is a follower of Friedman and his early intervention in the money supply averted a disaster in 2008. However, under current conditions, pumping more money into the economy just pumps more money into banks. With demand low, no one needs to produce more or expand. Fears of inflation, thus far, seem overblown.

  3. Tax cutters. These conservative economists argue that “tax cuts [are] the only fiscal policy with the potential to raise growth.” There are some problems with this view — even according to Bartlett. If demand is slack, businesses have no reason to expand — even if it is cheaper to do so.

The Austrians (so-called by they are followers of Friedrich Hayek) are widely regarded as crazy — even among conservatives. The other two views don’t seem like much of an improvement.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. … remember that the Tax Cutters have a record of using this prescription not just for this recession but for any and all situations.  They can’t be taken seriously.  

    • is that after two years of lamenting the moral and economic profligacy that is deficit spending, this nation’s “conservatives” sign onto a hugely expensive tax bill and justify this, according to John Boehner, because “Washington does not have a revenue problem. Washington has a spending problem.”
      Everyone knows this is a charade and that no amount of spending cuts that the Republicans might propose would compensate for this lost revenue. In fact, I doubt that many of them believe that any of their publicly stated policies would have a positive effect on economic growth. You don’t have to be terribly cynical to believe that really their only goals are to reward their wealthiest constituents and to remove most traces of a government-sponsored safety net.
      Unfortunately calling their bluff will have enormous negative consequences for most Americans.

      • … everyone loves a tax cut when it’s a simple yes/no question (emphasis mine):

        <

        p>

        First, as we have argued elsewhere, even as Bartels offers an extremely nuanced take on public attitudes towards taxes and other policy issues, he frames the matter in a way that suggests much higher levels of support for tax cuts than is justified. As Mark Hansen has argued, survey questions that simply ask whether voters favor a particular tax cut, without mentioning alternative uses of that money, are not very meaningful, because voters provide answers that simply don’t add up. Asked in this manner, voters favor virtually all tax cuts. Asked the same way, they also favor most spending increases. And they favor a balanced budget. To conclude based on this evidence, as Bartels seems to, that voters favored or supported a particular initiative (such as sharp reductions or elimination of the estate tax – one of the least favored tax reductions) seems suspect. To us, Bartels’s analysis highlights how critical the control of agenda-setting is, not that “Homer’s” desire for a tax cut had much to do with the 2001 debate.”

        • is that it works on an almost subliminal level. Like many of the GOP’s core issues, tax cuts have all the logic of a starving rat trained to press a button to choose cocaine.

          <

          p>Rhetoric, however, is perfectly legal Tax cuts are more like the prescription drug of the GOP and America is hooked. An ideological success for the GOP, but not necessarily a boon for Americans who would like to see certain public programs and services cut.

          <

          p>As the famous America poet Axl Rose used to sing: “I used to do a little/But a little wouldn’t do it/So the little got more and more.” We’ve been dancing with Mr. Brownstone, and cold turkey time is near.

          • I’ve been pondering this article by Lakoff at truthout. He says a few things that stick out:

            • As you say, we are trained to regard reducing taxes as good.
            • In movies (think Slumdog Millionaire) and popular culture generally, millionaires are not bad guys.

            He also points out that a lot of what government provides are necessities. Our use of the word “services” as in “government services” makes it sound like “car rentals, parking lots, hair salons, gardening, painting,” etc. “Adequate food, water, housing, transportation, education, infrastructure (roads and bridges, sewers, public buildings), medical care,” etc. are necessities and differ from things like dry cleaning and car washing.

Archives