I can’t believe I’m reading this from one of the smartest econobloggers out there, Megan McArdle. See for yourself:
I’m watching Obama claim that it is “largely thanks to the Recovery Act” that the recession didn’t become a depression. I supported the stimulus, and still do. But this claim is ludicrous.
The stimulus didn’t avert a depression. It hasn’t stemmed stemmed job losses. We’re saddled with new debt and, in some cases, newly-higher baseline spending. And it limits our choices in the future — on domestic spending, because the money’s all gone; and internationally, so as not to offend our foreign creditors.
Oh, and the damn “Recovery” act has put us at risk of a nasty inflation and a double-dip recession.
So tell me, Megan, why you supported this thing and, more importantly, how you manage to support it still?
(Hat tip, Insty.)
“So tell me, Megan, why you supported this thing and, more importantly, how you manage to support it still?”
This is an easy question to answer. I feel somewhat like the home run hitter who just got a slow pitch over the middle of the plate. There are two questions that must be clearly separated in your mind. How do you create a strong economy to satisfy the needs of the majority of the citizenry? The answer: you embrace the libertarian economic doctrines of Ludwig Von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. But what if you are an “elite” graduating from an Ivy League school? In that case, you are probably far better off adhering to the big government doctrines of John Maynard Keynes! They will assure you of obtaining a very well paying job after graduation—and lot’s of power. It really is that simple.
David –
Megan’s old blog — going way back to 2001 — was one of the first I regularly read. It was called “The Jane Galt Line.” Megan’s views largely are libertarian. Were then, are now. Which is what makes this all so baffling.
“Megan’s views largely are libertarian.”
I am very well aware of her Jane Galt days. It was also one of my favorite blogs. Megan wants to be member of the hip-and-with-it crowd. The vast majority of her friends benefit greatly from Obama’s big government policies. They tell Megan about their wonderful job that was just created. She begins to envy their financial independence and higher social status. Megan has lived on a tight budget since graduating from college. This libertarian stuff has not been kind to her pocketbook. Her Keynesian friends are almost certainly doing much better. Never forget that the silly John Kenneth Galbraith reportedly earned more money than Von Mises, Hayek, and Friedman combined! Those historians who criticized the absurd historical writings of Arthur J. Schlesinger, Jr. regarding the New Deal were often forced to find jobs in the second and third tier schools. Are you aware of what happened to Pajamas Media’s own Clayton Cramer after he blew the whistle on Michael Bellesiles?
I think that David’s onto something. I’ve been a long time reader of Megan’s as well, and I would call her more of a liberaltarian, one who-apparently- thinks that Keynes is God’s gift to economics. I won’t bother to look it up, but last year she said that she supported spending money like water in 2009 and was open to the idea of doing the same in 2010. Today’s statement is therefore no surprise to me.
Oh, and since she was such a huge Obama supporter in 2008, she doesn’t want to appear uncharitable to his idiotic economic decisions. To do so would make her appear stupid, I guess. Personally, I think that a sign of a mature intellect is admitting that you were wrong. I’m still waiting to see when -or if- Megan will take that step.
I agree that many of her stated economic positions are largely libertarian, but her current infatuation with Keynesian economics is strong. Much of that emotion I believe is tied to her support of Obama for president. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think so.
Maybe she’s so invested in her position that she is unable to take an objective relook?
The heck with Megan McArdle. What about the usually insightful and brilliant Richard A. Posner? He recently wrote an incredible dumb book entitled, A Failure of Capitalism: The Crisis of ’08 and the Descent Into Depression. Both McArdle and Posner inhabit a culture where most of their relatives and friends are rewarded handsomely for jumping aboard Obama’s big government bandwagon. Dissent is not welcomed. They are made to feel uncomfortable. A father, for instance, may not like being told that his son’s newly acquired job in the Obama administration is a waste of taxpayer dollars!
I’m with the other commenters here, Stephen — there is simply no way to reconcile calling oneself a libertarian while supporting a bill that took $787 billion out of the economy to “put it back into the economy.”
In fact, libertarian or not the “stimulus” never made a lick of sense. It’s like trying to move a spaceship out of low-earth orbit by getting out to push.
And how libertarian is it to want to have the government stick its nose further into health care, if not right out nationalization.
McCain was no prize either, and I hate choosing the lesser of two evils, but The Whine was just so far on the left.
A libertarian walking into a room of some fifty people directly or indirectly employed by the government is often implicitly declaring that many of them should lose their job. The country would be better off if they were immediately forced to find employment in the private sector. This does not exactly make one popular. At the very minimum, your presence ruffles a few feathers. You will inevitably be tempted to believe that these folks are exceptions to the general rule. It is also might be very difficult trying to get romantically involved with someone you deem a parasite on the system. Yup, I can hear it now: “Suzie is kind of cute, but she is wasting taxpayer dollars working at the Department of Education. I hope she is unemployed by no later than next week.”
MM credits TARP more than ARRA
(which is pronounced ‘error’)
and would like better data on
the ARRA multiplier (if any).
I prefer Heinlein on Economics
…and human nature; A Rational
Anarchist does not expect the
government or the people to act
rationally, and hence is never
disappointed when they do not,
and does not waste time on pique
which could be spent preparing
for the coming Hard Times.
If anything, it put us at more risk of a depression, as now we are unable to refi our existing debt at low rates. The government should have been competing with bank to lend to current borrowers instead of bidding up interest rates.
While you’re asking her questions, ask if the science of global worming is still settled.
I thought the science of global worming was settled in “Tremors”.
I stopped reading her when she had a snotty post about how deniers are stupid and people (smart people, people like her) told her the science was settled and that’s that.
I haven’t read her since.
By definition, of course, science is never settled.
I’ve never understood the “science is settled” comment from anyone about anything. Observe. Hypothesize. Test. Revise hypothesis and retest. Tell people exactly how you did what you did and see if your results are repeatable. Whatever’s left over and not falsified? That is probably a good working theory. However, it is still subject to revision or falsification due to any contrary evidence.
As I tell my students: science isn’t hard; being intellectually honest is.
What physics geek said. You know only what you can demonstrate to be true. The rest is theory. And what is demonstrably true is true only so far as, you know, that that shit actually happens.
Anything else you believe is fantastical bullshit.
I apologize for any PJTV dirty word guidelines I may have violated.
And as much as I like PJTV and most of the folks that post here, any language guidelines in the comments section on PJTV is pretty anti-liberty IMHO. Anyone who can’t take a dirty word and not have a spaz attack doesn’t belong here to begin with.
Christ, it was the epitome of cool when I was a kid to be able to give the finger without using your thumb. I have to consciously make an effort NOT to use the F word in conversation with people I don’t know. Why? Because it works so well as an emphatic.
OK, so I walked off due to some real life stuff, so I lost my irked momentum.
So the gist of what was eventually getting to was: science/logic good, censorship, in any form, bad.
You know, in retrospect, given enough time, you can say what you wanna say in a lot fewer words than you think you need.
Irony not lost, so shaddup.