Stephen Moore, reacting perhaps just a bit hostilely to Jay Carney’s… look, I’ll get into it after the quote:
Economic bimboism is rampant in Washington.
And Carney’s one of the bimbos, apparently. What seems to have set this off was Carney’s rather snotty response to Moore’s colleague Laura Meckler; Meckler had asked the very reasonable question about how subsidizing people to not work actually creates jobs. The problem is that it’s only a reasonable question if you’re not personally and politically invested in Keynesian economic theory… which Carney proceeded to demonstrate by rudely suggesting that Meckler’s question called her right to work at the WSJ in question. He then duckspoke the standard Keynesian line that subsidizing the unemployed gives them money to spread through the system, thus indirectly creating jobs. That this rosy model assumes that government acts as a perfect fiscal superconductor* is lost on Carney, but not on Stephen Moore** – who proceeds to go off on Carney, then macroeconomics in general.
Of course, this just might all be Beltway bitchiness: Carney’s a Yalie, & Meckler’s associated with Hahrvahhd. Or it could just be that Meckler’s tenure at the AP & the WSJ trumps Carney’s at Time, and that rankles Carney just a touch***. Either way, Carney’s probably going to need to figure out pretty soon that he’s going to need another job within the next… two years, at best; with any luck, within the next year and a half. Being a schmuck to the folks he used to work alongside – and presumably would like to, in the future – is an excellent way for Carney to eventually find out whether unemployment benefits are really the equivalent of having a job****….
(Via AoSHQ Headlines)
Moe Lane
*If you don’t understand that statement, I am going to emulate Carney slightly and gently suggest that you look it up.
**Moore is, mind you, somebody who has been affiliated with Heritage, CATO, and the Club For Growth: so his major problem in economic disputes is avoiding spitting on the floor at hearing the very name “Keynes.” Take that as you will.
***Ah. Politics. Sausage. Economic reporting.
***I exaggerate for dramatic effect. At that level, there’s always another job available.
The idea of “stimulus” isn’t entirely loony, and it really doesn’t matter where the stimulus is applied — both recipients of unemployment benefits and rich Presdential cronies spend the money, which sets off the multiplier cycle.
The trouble is, there has to be an economy to stimulate. If the bulk of interactions are between individuals and Government, the stimulus just bounces right back with no effect.
Regards,
Ric
You comments regarding Carney’s plight regarding his future job prospects calls to mind one of my favorite expressions: “Be careful of the toes you step on on the way up. They may be attached to asses you will have to kiss on the way back down.”
My struggle with ‘stimulus’ spending by the government is that the government only taxes incomes, not cash reserves. If the money being spent for stimulus came from cash reserves on which someone was sitting and not spending, maybe, MAYBE, there would be a net stimulative effect.
But Americans have a high MPC (marginal propensity to consume)so TAXES on incomes DIMINISH spending by those earning the incomes.
Therefore any net stimulative [with or without the multiplier] effect would be negligible. That is to say statistically and economically inconsequential.
Demand for anything is always 100%. I want a flying car. So does everyone else. Demand is 100%. We always want stuff.
Which is why I cant for the life of me understand people who think the problem rests on the demand side of the equation. There is a reason people have cash reserves. Until the supply side of the equation is dealt with, they will continue to have cash reserves.