Book Recommendation for Prof. Paul Krugman originally appeared on About.com Economics on Thursday, November 19th, 2009 at 15:22:26.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Why Use CPI as Our Measure of Inflation, When Other Measures Matter More? originally appeared on About.com Economics on Thursday, November 19th, 2009 at 09:55:44.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Exceedingly High Tax Rates and the Poverty Trap originally appeared on About.com Economics on Friday, November 13th, 2009 at 11:50:17.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

More Government Policies Promoting The Consumption of Junk Food originally appeared on About.com Economics on Thursday, November 12th, 2009 at 14:42:54.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Peter G. Klein left a comment that indicates that Scott Sumner and I are not the only economists leery of the concept of inflation:

Mike, you and Scott have some distinguished predecessors. Gottfried Haberler made
the same argument in his 1927 book _The Mean of Index Numbers: An Inquiry in the
Concept of the Price Level and the Methods of Its Measurement_. E.g.: "The relative
position and change of different groups of prices are not revealed, but are hidden
and submerged in a general index. Not the movement of the general price level, but
the chronological succession of special price and price combinations ... are regarded
as significant for the waves of business life.... Such a general index rather conceals
and submerges than reveals and explains those price movements that characterize and
signify the movement of the cycle."

I have to admit, my knowledge of the history of thought in economics is quite limited, so I quite enjoyed learning this (it was new to me). I decided to do some additional research (a.k.a. a Google search), and found Gottfried Haberler: A Centenary Appreciation, a summary of the man's work. I found it quite enlightening.

I figure there have to be more economists to take this view - any other names to add to the list? I still suspect, though, that we are in the minority. Too many textbooks treat the concept of inflation as an objective concept that we try our best to estimate. It is not, because our basket of goods changes over time and any attempts to account for this are based on subjective 'judgment calls'.

Inflation as an Arbitrary Concept - Part II originally appeared on About.com Economics on Thursday, November 12th, 2009 at 09:58:02.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

There is a way to raise revenues and also control costs: Congress could simply extend the present tax exclusion of employer-sponsored health insurance to a cash-out of those costs as additional salary that employees could use to buy their own health insurance. This approach would motivate insured employees to treat their health insurance as if they paid for it directly and appeal to taxpayers.

How to Control Health Care Costs originally appeared on About.com Economics on Thursday, November 12th, 2009 at 09:41:48.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

A RAND study suggests that obesity causes an increase in chronic medical conditions of 67 percent. Similarly living in poverty increases the rate of chronic medical conditions of 58 percent. These naturally lead to an increase in costs to health care:

Obese individuals spend more on both services and medication than daily smokers and heavy drinkers. For example, obese individuals spend approximately 36 percent more than the general baseline population on health services, compared with a 21 percent increase for daily smokers and a 14 percent increase for heavy drinkers. Obese individuals spend 77 percent more on medications. Only aging has a greater effect -- and only on expenditures for medications.

Want to improve the health of the U.S. population? You can do so in three steps:

1. Remove highly distortionary farm policies, which largely subsidize the production of 'junk food'.
   
   
2. Place a tax on junk food - such as the proposed cola tax:

   "In what is certain to become a world-wide debate on the use of economic sanctions to tackle obesity, a group led by academics from Yale and Harvard universities proposed a "cola war", with a 1 cent tax per fluid ounce on sweetened beverages, raising the price of the average can of cola by 15 to 20 per cent.
   
   

   They say this would cut calorie consumption from drinks by a minimum of 10 per cent (enough to prompt weight loss) and contribute almost $15bn towards the health costs of obesity."
   
   

3. Transfer the tax revenue collected to low-income households, or implement some kind of negative income tax, in order to help raise families out of poverty.

These three steps would greatly improve health outcomes in the United States and not cost the U.S. government a thing. Lives would improve as chronic disease would be reduced - the benefits go beyond financial costs. Furthermore, health care resources would be freed up to be used elsewhere.

This is a far, far more sensible plan than increasing government spending and only treating people after they get sick.

How the U.S. Government Can Increase Health Without Spending More Than a Cent originally appeared on About.com Economics on Tuesday, November 10th, 2009 at 17:44:02.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Inflation is an arbitrary concept that has never been clearly defined, or at least defined in a way that relates to how it is actually measured.

He then links to an earlier blog post - Six reasons to abolish inflation, which ends with:

What's the use of inflation? It's worthless. Let's get rid of it. Take it out of our models. Take it out of our policy rules. If indexing is required then use wage inflation. If you can't afford to do that for Social Security, tell old folks they'll get wage inflation minus 1%. Remind them that although at age 70 they'll be playing golf and taking cruises, by 90 they'll mostly be sitting around watching TV. And by that time even 60 inch 1080P Pioneer Kuros will be considered so crappy that Walmart will be almost giving them away.

I know that Sumner is being 'provocative' (his words), but he is right on the money. I am actually rather shocked to find another economist who agrees with my views on inflation.

Inflation as an Arbitrary Concept originally appeared on About.com Economics on Tuesday, November 10th, 2009 at 17:25:02.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Understanding Cross-Price and Own-Price Elasticity of Demand originally appeared on About.com Economics on Saturday, October 31st, 2009 at 17:15:41.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Dodd’s plan for overhauling Wall Street regulations, released last week, includes a proposed new organization: the Agency for Financial Stability (AFS). This new regulator would be tasked with identifying and addressing “systemic risks posed by large, complex companies as well as products and activities that can spread risk across firms.” This represents one piece of the most extensive proposal to reform financial services regulation—topping even the ridiculousness of the Obama plan and Barney Frank plan. Which is saying a lot.

The financial crisis has made off with nearly $30 trillion in global wealth. Dodd believes Wall Street banks and other financial institutions are the chief culprits in this dubious economic caper. And to exact revenge, he will push for some of the toughest, most expansive regulatory powers to date.

To do this, Dodd plans to go Elliot Ness on Wall Street, using economists and accountants as if they were FBI agents. Only instead of targeting Al Capone and Big Angelo Lonardo, these number-crunchers would be given nearly limitless power to hunt down systemic risks inside America’s financial institutions.

Here’s one of the biggest problems with this (and with the Obama and Frank plans, too): the government offers only a dangerously vague definition of what constitutes a financial institution. So not only would Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase qualify, but firms like Wal-Mart, Ford, and Texas Instruments—not exactly the companies you think of when discussing Wall Street regulation—might be subject to higher compliance standards as well. It all depends on the subjective whims of the Agency for Financial Stability.

As outlined in the Dodd plan, AFS would be an independent agency, one whose chairman was appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. It would also have a 9-member board comprised of federal financial regulators and an independent expert.

The structure is similar to President Obama’s proposed Financial Services Oversight Council. Both of these proposed overseers would monitor the market for systemic risks, and would possess the authority to collect information from financial institutions as needed. The major difference is that where the Obama council would only have the power to designate firms as “Tier 1” companies, a category that would require stricter regulation, Dodd’s agency would actually have the power to break-up those companies considered too big to fail.

In other words, an Agency for Financial Stability would enjoy unprecedented power over the private sector. Presently, if the government wants to take a large firm apart, it must first take its case to court, proving that the company is either a monopoly or that it is maliciously attacking its competitors.

Yet not only would Dodd’s AFS write rules for capital requirements, leverage limiting, and risk management compliance, it would also have the authority to treat Wells Fargo or UBS like the Bonanno crime family.

Which means that the risk of undue political influence is palpable. Let say’s enough people come to believe that Goldman Sachs is secretly controlling the Treasury Department, as Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi so viciously claimed. All those people need to do is pressure the government into taking the company apart on the grounds that it’s size has become too critical to the economic health of the nation. There are certainly enough anti-Goldman Sachs staffers on Capitol Hill to make that happen. And it doesn’t take a follower of Ayn Rand to imagine a scenario where flimsy justifications like “to expand competition” and “create a fair playing field” start rolling off the tongues of aggressive AFS agents.

Nor is the Agency for Financial Stability the only part of the Dodd plan worth worrying about. His regulatory overhaul proposal also includes a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, similar to the one currently being considered in the House. Even more aggressive than Rep. Frank’s version, this consumer agency would also ultimately protect the market to death.

The Wall Street Journal pointed out last week that the Dodd overhaul plan would open up anyone who associates with someone accused of fraud to civil suits, even if prosecutors have no proof or are just on a fishing expedition. The Dodd proposal also repeats the errors of the Obama plan on issues like derivative reform, hedge funds, and executive compensation.

There are a few good ideas in the proposal. Consolidating federal banking rules into a single regulator could do a lot to simplify and refocus banking rules. Though that reform shouldn’t be kept separate from consumer protection concerns, and it would be inappropriate for the regulator to force the various charters under its supervision into one-size-fits-all regulations.

The Dodd plan also requires large firms to provide “funeral plans” outlining how they could be quickly and effectively shutdown in the case of an emergency. In theory, this is just a part of responsible risk management. But the Dodd plan treads into dangerous waters by giving AFS the authority to approve or reject such plans.

In the end, the Dodd plan is on the highest order of hubris. Politicians in Washington honestly believe they can fix the economy and prevent future calamity. Sure, they weren’t quite right when they “fixed” the system after Enron, or when they “reformed” the rules under Clinton, or when they “fixed” everything after the Savings and Loan Crisis. But this time will be different! At least Elliot Ness knew enough to change tactics after several initial failures to capture Al Capone.

The current financial crisis was largely brought about by well-intentioned regulations that just got it wrong. We thought that 8 percent was enough capital for banks to hold onto in case they ran into trouble. We thought that subprime mortgage-backed securities were decreasing risk. We were wrong on both counts. We can’t anticipate every risk. Under the Dodd plan—like the Obama and Frank plans before it— we’ll be proven wrong once again.

Anthony Randazzo is a policy analyst for Reason Foundation.

The measure was approved by the House Financial Services Committee as it considered broad bank regulatory reform legislation, and included a package of other measures weakening the Fed's power and capping how much it can lend or guarantee.

The committee is now poised to pass the entire bill and has scheduled its final vote on the legislation for December 1.

Lawmakers also agreed to provisions that would require the Fed to work with other regulators before acting as a lender-of-last-resort.

"If you care about transparency of the Fed, you would allow a look at monetary policy," Paul said. "We're dealing with trillions of dollars that doesn't get audited. There is no reason why the world can't know, eventually, what the Fed is doing."

Paul's measure, which was approved by a vote of 43 to 26, would require the Government Accountability Office to audit the central bank's interest rate policy, agreements with foreign governments, foreign central banks and the International Monetary Fund. It also would permit audits of a roughly $800 billion Fed mortgage-backed securities purchase program, which could grow to $1.25 trillion, Paul said.

The GAO would be instructed to complete a Fed audit within 12 months of passage of the bill.

For background, see my November Reason magazine feature on how this unlikely bill took anti-Fed thought from the fringes to the mainstream

Last week on The O'Reilly Factor, we talked about California's and New York's enormous budget deficits and planned tax increases. Those states would have big surpluses had they just grown their governments in pace with inflation. But of course they didn't. Now the politicians act like their current deficits are something imposed on them by the recession.

But that's nonsense. They created the problem with their reckless spending.

Let's look at the particulars. Had the government of New York state grown at the rate of population and inflation over the past 10 years, it would have a $14 billion surplus today. Instead, spending grew at twice the rate of inflation. So New York has a $3 billion deficit.

To dent California's deficit, bureaucrats will withhold an extra 10 percent from every taxpayer—at least from those who don't flee the state. New York planned to raise the price of new license plates, but then backed off. The visible tax was unpopular. But the hidden taxes grow.

Hidden taxes are more pernicious because they disguise what we pay for government. We blame merchants, not our legislators, for the high price of gasoline, liquor, cigarettes, and phone calls, but the money goes to the political thieves.

New York imposes a gas tax of 61 cents a gallon—almost a quarter of the cost of the gas. New York City taxes cigarettes at $4.25 a pack. Washington state collects $26 per gallon of hard liquor. Illinois politicians take a sneaky cut when you buy junk food: They add 6.25 percent to the cost of soda and candy.

My phone bill lists seven different taxes—unintelligible stuff like a "Public Safety Commission Surcharge" and an "MCTD tax." The payroll tax is one of the biggest hidden taxes. You assume that you know what you pay because it's listed on your paycheck, but that's actually only half of it. Employers must pay an equal amount—money that otherwise would have been part your salary.

O'Reilly was most indignant about the visible taxes. "You, Stossel, are going to be paying 45 percent of your money to the government!" he said. I replied that I already pay more than that, since I live in New York City.

But I apparently was not indignant enough, because later in his show he told comedian Dennis Miller, "Stossel doesn't get it."

O'Reilly is right about my not being furious. It's not that taxes don't anger me. They do. But I'm more angry about the arrogance of the ruling class. It reminds me of Walter Williams' riff: "Politicians are worse than thieves. At least when thieves take your money, they don't expect you to thank them for it."

Taxes, even counting hidden taxes, are not the real measure of what the thieves take. The true burden of government, the late Milton Friedman said, is the spending level. Taxation is just one way government gets money. The other ways—borrowing and inflation—are equally burdens on the people. (State governments can't inflate, but they sure can borrow.)

O'Reilly told me that America is ready for a tax revolt. I hope he's right. But I don't think it will happen until more people see the ruling elite for what it is: a gang of arrogant bullies that has the audacity to believe that they know how to direct our lives better than we do.

That's why, bad as the taxes are, I'm more upset about ObamaCare, Medicare, the "stimulus," the auto bailout, the bank bailouts, the Fannie/Freddie bailouts, the trillions in guarantees, and on and on.

The politicians' spending schemes represent presumptuous interference in our lives. They are an assault on our autonomy.

John Stossel will soon host Stossel on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of Give Me a Break and of Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity.

COPYRIGHT 2009 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

If the world manages to avoid an all-out trade war of the kind that helped trigger the Great Depression after the U.S. imposed the Smoot-Hawley tariffs in 1930, it will be in no small part due to the efforts of one man: Jagdish N. Bhagwati, an ebullient and irreverent 76-year-old professor of economics at Columbia University. Bhagwati has done more than perhaps any other person alive to advance the cause of unfettered global trade.

A native of India, Bhagwati immigrated to the United States in the late ’60s after a brief stint on the Indian Planning Commission, where he learned first-hand the insanity of an economic approach that tried to modernize a country by cutting it off from world trade. Since then, he has devoted his efforts, both in academia and in the popular press, to showing that there is no better way of improving the lot of both advanced countries and the developing world than through free trade. His path-breaking contributions to trade theory have put him on the short list for a Nobel Prize in economics.

Though a dogged trade advocate, Bhagwati is anything but dogmatic. He is a free spirit who draws intellectual inspiration from many disparate ideological camps. A self-avowed liberal, he is also something of a Gandhian social progressive, though Gandhi himself supported economic autarky. Bhagwati works with numerous Third World NGOs on a host of human rights issues. Yet he has no problem taking on these groups—or his famous student, Nobel laureate Paul Krugman—when they question the benefits of trade. In fact, he devoted his 2004 magnum opus, In Defense of Globalization, to a point-by-point rebuttal of these critics. Although he doesn’t vote Republican because he dislikes the party’s nationalistic jingoism, he readily declares that Democrats pose a far bigger threat to international exchange than Republicans.

This summer Shikha Dalmia, a senior analyst at the Reason Foundation, interviewed Bhagwati in his New York office.

reason: You have been on the short list for a Nobel Prize in economics for your contribution to trade theory. Could you explain what your main contribution is?

Jagdish Bhagwati: My breakthrough in trade theory was very simple, as all breakthroughs are. Back in the 1950s, when the case for free trade was widely regarded as less compelling analytically than today, protectionists had one very powerful argument on their side. They noted that a country necessarily benefits from free trade only when markets are perfect—that is to say, only when market prices reflect true social costs can we expect these prices to guide allocation correctly. Take pollution. Say your production process makes you spew things into the air and water but you do not have to pay for this pollution. Then the social cost of harming others is not being taken into account by you and hence your production costs are less than the “correct” social costs.

So you could take two points of view. The time-honored view was that when there is such “market failure,” or what might be better called a “missing market,” the case for free trade was compromised and any form of protectionism was justified. I argued that if you had a market failure, fix that, and you are back to perfect markets and the legitimacy of free trade. So, for example, you can have a polluter-pay principle on the environment. If you do that, then there’s no damaging spillover which has not been taken into account.

The proper policy response then is not to abandon free trade but rather to fix the market failure and then to embrace free trade. This was a revolutionary thought. For 200 years, serious economists had abandoned free trade in the presence of market failures of one kind or another.

reason: In Defense of Globalization was addressed to non-academic critics of free trade and globalization who claim that globalization does not have a human face. What was your argument?

Bhagwati: When I was in Seattle in 1999, when everything went haywire as far as trying to get a new round of trade negotiations, I realized that the young people who were agitating, and some of the older folks also, were not interested in whether trade was good for national income and prosperity. They were claiming that globalization has an adverse impact on a whole lot of social issues—gender equity issues, environmental issues, the effects of globalization on the polity and democratic rights. In short, to use the fetching phrase, they were concerned that economic globalization lacked a human face.

My book addressed precisely such issues. I found that, contrary to the fears of the critics, most social agendas were advanced rather than handicapped by globalization. Globalization, I concluded, had a human face.

Take women’s issues, for example: If you look at what happens to the gender gap on pay inequality, it turns out that you can make a perfectly solid argument that in fact it’s narrowed rather than widened as a result of international trade. The reason is very simple: If a man is paid twice as much as a woman, when they are both equally competent, that is inefficient. So when you are engaged in international competition, you’re really not going to be able to indulge your prejudice in this way. This will lead to more demand for women and less for men, bringing pressure to bear on their relative wages in the direction of greater pay equality.

Two brilliant young women, Sandra Black and Elizabeth Brainerd, did their dissertation at Harvard on this hypothesis. They found that in two decades in internationally traded industries in the United States, the gender wage gap narrowed faster than in non-traded industries. Trade had thus been good for an important social objective, not a drag on it.

reason: You still hear the argument—President Obama made it during his campaign—that we want fair trade, not free trade.

Bhagwati: In the United States the phrase “fair trade” holds a lot of sway, because fairness is an important issue here. In the United States it’s the equality of opportunity, not of outcome, that matters. We have a fairness-oriented culture. The Europeans, who are actually more stratified—they’re more into equality of outcome. The social mobility of people is much less, so they want the state to intervene and redistribute. They’re more into justice and we’re more into fairness.

So if you want to be a protectionist in the U.S., you’ve got to say that these Japanese or these Indians are trading unfairly. People will much more readily give you protection if they think the other guy is a wicked unfair trader.

President Obama hasn’t really understood the case for free trade because I don’t think he’s been too interested in trade. His background is as an activist working with the poor people, so he hasn’t thought about these issues. So he ends up listening to other people, and a lot of people who are protectionist are around him, particularly the unions, who are afraid of international competition. But they dress up the fair trade argument in altruism, that they’re doing it to raise the labor standards and wages of workers in India and Brazil and so on and so forth, when in fact, they’re doing it to protect their own workers from competition. The president doesn’t seem to realize that this is something which other people, whom you pretend you’re trying to help, actually see as a naked, cynical ploy.

Instead of pandering to union fear, Obama has got to engage them. You have got to help these doubting Thomases confront their fears. He’s got to say that trade with the poor countries is actually helping, not hurting, you. The unions’ main fear is that unskilled jobs are disappearing. They see these jobs being taken up elsewhere where the labor is cheap. But they can’t hold onto these jobs anyway. What they get in return from trade are cheap products that they need as consumers. So free trade moderates the downward pressure on their real wages.

Big portions of the wages of poor workers go toward low quality textiles, for instance. That is well-established. But if you look at the structure of protectionism, if you go and buy something from Anne Klein that’s going to be expensive, but it carries no tariff at all because these high-end designers compete on variety. Tariffs matter where the competition is on prices. So the low-quality items which poor people buy end up carrying higher tariffs than high-end items that rich people buy.

reason: So free trade’s harm to union workers as producers is minimal, but the harm to them as consumers would be very great if we didn’t have free trade?

Bhagwati: Yes. So what President Obama has to do is basically change the ethos in this country so that it understands that the United States has profited enormously from free trade. Free trade has rescued India and China from poverty, yes. But the U.S. working class has also profited from international trade.

He’s got to make an eloquent case like that. He’s got to see that this is something that needs as much attention and as much of his eloquence as the speech he made on race after he got into trouble over his pastor.

But then to move the case of free trade forward, the Obama administration has to show global leadership, because the U.S. is the biggest trading country. He has got to make sure that the stimulus package and everything that he does is completely consistent with openness. I think he’s got to understand this is not something he can keep postponing and postponing.

When President Clinton came in the first year, he was into Japan bashing and he hadn’t made up his mind on whether he wanted trade or not, because he had advisors on both sides. So his first year was extremely tentative. Then he made up his mind and was fiercely pro-trade after that. President Bush, the junior, he too gave into steel tariffs when he first came in, but after the first year, when he found his feet, he was very pro-trade.

President Obama doesn’t have that luxury because the weaknesses are showing in the way the stimulus is being designed and played out. So someone has to tell him very clearly that he doesn’t have the luxury of most presidents, which is to use a first year to find your feet on trade. He’s got to be out there and he’s got to provide the leadership. He’s got to bring in the people who waiver and dither, the AFL-CIO, the Democrats who are indebted to the AFL-CIO, and say: “Look, you’re wrong. Here, let’s have a debate.” There are lots of Democratic economists who’d be able to engage these guys in a proper debate.

reason: In recent years, the opposition to free trade hasn’t just come from left-wing unions, but also people on the right who fear that outsourcing will cause the U.S. to lose its economic edge as it imports high-value-added products and exports low-value-added ones. How do you respond to that?

Bhagwati: It’s an irrelevant argument. To say that the United States should be exporting high-value items rather than low-value items is itself a fallacy. But America’s great comparative advantage lies in innovation. For someone like me who has come from India it is very obvious that this country is full of innovators. When I was a student I read about Britain’s Industrial Revolution. And it was powered by all kinds of people, inventing the spinning jenny and so on. They were like little Americans, you know, thinking of new ways of doing things and making a buck. Almost every other American I know is thinking about something, some way to do something. We are a highly inventive people, and technology therefore is our driving force. It’s not savings and investments which are driving our productivity. It’s technology and innovation and immigrants like me—not me in particular—lots of people who come here and by the second generation go through the mill and become Colin Powell or Orlando Patterson at Harvard.

Nobody can compete with us in the long run, in my view, because these are not advantages which people in traditional societies can reproduce. So we’re always going to be doing high value. We’ll lose the high value we generate to others quickly because now technology diffuses very fast. But then we’ll have new ideas, new technologies.

reason: Which side poses the bigger threat to free trade, conservatives on sovereignty, neo-mercantilist grounds, or liberals on equity and environmental grounds?

Bhagwati: In the U.S., I think the Democrats are the biggest threat to free trade. I don’t see the right-wing threat to globalization in terms of sovereignty as being a major one, frankly.

Conservatives are principled people, so they have Edmund Burke type of reservations about continuous change and so on. But they are not people who are going to undermine the rule of law when it comes to trade. Even their arguments against immigration are rule-of-law arguments. Anti-globalization noises saying we’ve lost our sovereignty and so on and so forth, it’s not going to get very far in the U.S. system.

The threat from the left, on the other hand, is much more serious because they oppose free trade on equity grounds. I love America. I have settled in it. But there is a tendency, particularly on the part of the Democrats, to become totally self-righteous on everything and this is the way it has to be and if you disagree, then you’re a Republican. I mean, that’s the way they argue it. It’s unbelievable. They don’t want to argue the merits of the case.

reason: Why do you think Republicans are better on free trade than Democrats?

Bhagwati: Both the last Bush and Ronald Reagan believed in America. They thought that their own people could win. That made them more prone to accept international competition and trade.

They carried that attitude over into politics, of course. For instance, President Reagan won the Cold War by pushing Gorbachev to the limit. But he was lucky. President Bush went into Iraq with the same attitude, and that was unfortunate.

But since they both believed that Americans would win, they were good on international trade, although maybe for the wrong reasons. Democrats don’t believe that America can remain number one, and hence they cannot bring themselves to be completely in favor of open markets.

reason: You are a big believer in multilateral trade agreements over bilateral trade agreements. What’s wrong with bilateral trade agreements?

Bhagwati: Free trade agreements and protectionism are two sides of the same coin. When I have free trade just with you, I’m freeing trade with you but I handicap those who are not members of our free trade area. They have to keep paying the duties to get into our markets. So that becomes a de facto way of increasing protection against outsiders. Multilateral free trade would be a closer thing to pure free trade.

But there are two additional worries about bilateral trade agreements: One, we don’t just have two or three free trade agreements. Today there are close to 500, and every week there’s another new one being constructed. As a result, you’re getting all kinds of special tariffs, rules of origin, and other things multiplying in the system, something which I’ve called the spaghetti bowl. Exporters rightly get upset by the large numbers of tariffs they face depending on where you’re coming from.

Two, how do you enforce these agreements in a globalized world? It’s very chaotic. Parts are coming from everywhere. For a country to have to then decide which product is my partner country’s product rather than an outside country’s product becomes completely arbitrary. A car produced in Canada with Japanese steel and German chemicals, where 80 or 90 percent of the parts may come from elsewhere—is that a Canadian car or is it really something else? Does it qualify for the zero tariff under the North American Free Trade Agreement or not?

reason: Was NAFTA a mistake?

Bhagwati: I think in retrospect, yes. It’s not a slam dunk argument because it did bring in Mexico. Otherwise, they were talking about CAFTA which included just Canada and the U.S. But when you brought in Mexico, it made it a much bigger thing.

President Clinton was carrying on the multilateral negotiations in tandem with NAFTA. But NAFTA created worries on the part of the unions here, because this is a poor country and they were worried that Mexican competition would really hurt their wages. So even though the multilateral talks would’ve gone through without any difficulty, President Clinton ended up having to fight very hard for NAFTA, which survived by a very narrow majority. In order to win NAFTA, he had to give in on things like labor standards and so on. That’s when all these social things became part of trade deals. From there, it never looked back.

So in retrospect, I would say, because of the concessions they had to make, Clinton started us down a road which really has been counterproductive.

There is another thing to worry about. When you look at a trade agreement like NAFTA, it’s about that thick (holds his hands about two feet apart). When I debate people like Lori Wallach of Public Citizen, she arrives with a lot of books, and among them is this NAFTA treaty she carries for effect. I hope she gets a hernia from doing this often enough, because it looks pretty heavy to me. I wouldn’t be carrying it around. Anyway, she shows this book and asks, “Is this free trade?” And mad as she is, she’s right to raise that issue. You should be able to say maybe in 10 pages that in these sectors we are going to liberalize and so on. But nine-tenths of what’s in these agreements are things which have nothing to do with trade. Labor standards, environmental standards, intellectual property rights. If I were Jane Fonda, in order to sell more workout tapes, I could put into the agreement a clause that the president of Mexico has to do his exercise to my tapes. And it would go in, because ours is a lobbying culture and nobody really would know that it’s there. Because who opens these things except the lobbyists?

So many developing countries are now waking up to the fact that they’re being sold a bill of goods in the form of trade agreements.

reason: Do you think a global externality problem like global warming poses a fundamental threat to free trade?

Bhagwati: I think it depends on the way you do it. First, you’ve got to decide whether there is a problem of an externality. I have doubts about these scientists who claim to have a consensus on global warming because, you know, Freeman Dyson, a great scientific figure, says these guys are really low-level scientists and I’m told by many that they, in fact, are. And if they reach a consensus, I don’t care. I mean, that’s the consensus of incompetents.

But so long as only the scientists were talking about global warming, nobody paid the slightest attention. Remember, not a single senator voted for the Kyoto resolution back in the ’90s. Even Al Gore and Clinton had to walk away from Kyoto. But then the polar bears were threatened, the glaciers began to melt, and then that great French film about the penguins which touched all our hearts came out. So these were three whammies. Even if you live in Peoria you will understand, wrongly maybe, that global warming is a problem. I tell all my students: If they think of something like that for free trade, please let me know.

What countries like India and China are saying is that if the CO2 was accumulating and it’s going to create a disaster, then that took a lot of time to establish. So they want the West to bear primary responsibility for the damage it has caused in the past. If America applies some kind of a carbon tax and it says that if India and China don’t impose a similar tax, it’s going to use what is called border tax adjustment, then that is protectionism. And there’s no reason why Indians and Chinese have to accept this. Just as America was not willing to accept it when it didn’t sign onto Kyoto and Europe started threatening a countervailing duty on American exports. But everybody reacted to that talk and said this is a cockeyed thing to do. Peter Mandelson, who was the EU Commissioner, said it was very unwise because the United States will retaliate.

It’s ironic that we are now using exactly that kind of threat on India and China. But America’s fuel tax is so much lower than that of most other countries, except the Middle East. So India and China are going to hit us because we had a low gas tax for a long time. And all hell would break loose. India and China are big guys. They can get legal [World Trade Organization] retaliation against the U.S. Or India could take away contracts from Boeing and give them to Air France. It can have nuclear reactors go to France rather than to G.E. Caterpillar would be shut out.

So I suggest a different way. If in our own U.S. system you’re going to get your companies to clean up under the Superfund Act, that’s a tort principle which we accept. Then we ought to be willing to pay in some form to other poor countries for the past damages. The West has completely ignored this suggestion so far. It has provided maybe a few million dollars in assistance to Third World countries for this purpose. But if the West seriously starts contributing to this fund, Third World countries could get anywhere from $150 million to $1 billion to mitigate global warming.

reason: This is a political non-starter, you know.

Bhagwati: Yes. But the president actually has made some remarks about border tax adjustments not being such a good idea. He’s got to do more than that. He’s got to say this is a crazy thing to do. He’s still very cool—he needs to lose his temper once in a while. Because it’s too important. The U.S. is one of the biggest trading nations in the world. We want the rule of law. We don’t want retaliation, which would be massive. India and China are not Zaire or Zimbabwe. They’re not little countries you can push around. We don’t want to unleash that kind of trade war, because it would be very hard to control, I’m afraid.

Inflation is the result of more dollars chasing the same number of (or fewer) goods. As the Nobel laureate Milton Friedman put it, in one of his main contributions to “monetarist” economics, inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon—that is, it’s caused by an expansion in the supply of money or credit. So why haven’t we seen inflation in 2009? Are we looking in the wrong places, or is it time to update monetarist theory?

The monetary base, which consists of currency in circulation plus bank reserves on deposit with the Federal Reserve, has exploded, as Figure 1 shows. Figure 2, by contrast, shows inflation as gauged by the consumer price index (CPI)—the cost of goods purchased by the average U.S. household—and by a measure called the median CPI. Standard CPI is the traditional measure for inflation, but a few extreme outliers (such as the price of fuel) can throw off the average; thus the median is a more robust statistic to estimate the central tendency in the data.

So while the standard CPI shows deflation over the past year, that stems from a few anomalous sectors, such as energy, where prices have dipped significantly since 2008. The median CPI, on the other hand, shows an inflation rate that does not look very unusual.

The standard explanation for the lack of inflation is that banks are sitting on all that new cash. As soon as the economy shows signs of recovery, goes the theory, banks will make more loans, and the broader monetary aggregates will shoot up rapidly. But that expectation ignores an important factor: Beginning in October 2008, for the first time in history, the Federal Reserve started paying interest on reserves held by banks. So even when the economy starts heating up, banks will have an incentive to hold money rather than lend it.

What’s more, should inflation rear its head anytime soon, the Fed could suck the newly created money out of the banking system by selling assets, such as some of the higher-quality mortgage-backed securities it bought from banks at the depth of the financial crisis. That would decrease the amount of money in the system and choke back inflation.

On top of that, the Georgetown University  economist Donald Marron has argued, if investors really thought we were on the verge of inflation, we would see the 10-year Treasury or 30-year mortgage rates go through the roof. But that hasn’t happened.

Marron’s view reflects what might be called the monetarist consensus. It is embraced by economists across the political spectrum, including Obama’s economic adviser Larry Summers and the current and former Fed chairmen. It is a position that relies on the wisdom of politically independent (and hopefully monetarist) central bankers to manage both the economy and the threat of inflation.

Besides placing undue faith in the Fed’s ability to time perfectly any necessary anti-inflationary measures, the consensus suggests that the nation’s central bank now has the heretofore undiscovered ability to increase the money supply without creating inflation. If true, this would be an important new development, since inflation has long been rightly vilified for destroying entrepreneurship and long-term economic growth. But if false, this conceit could prove dangerous indeed. And it’s probably false.

On his blog Free Advice in September, the Pacific Research Institute economist Robert Murphy argued that inflation is already here but economists are missing the signs. “From [December 2008] until August 2009, the unadjusted CPI level has increased 2.7%, which translates to an annualized increase of just over 4%,” Murphy wrote. He acknowledged that “ten-year yields [on Treasury bonds] are…low” but added that the price of gold has increased enormously. “Why do we assume that TIPS [Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities] traders are genius forecasters, but gold traders are morons?” he asked.

In an email message, Murphy adds: “I believe we are currently witnessing a bubble in Treasury debt. I consider the current yields on 10-year U.S. government bonds to be absurdly low, just like the price of housing was absurdly high in early 2006. After this bubble bursts, investors will slap themselves on the forehead and say, ‘What were we thinking? Why did we rush into Treasurys even as the government told us it was planning to double the federal debt burden in a decade?’ ”

The St. Lawrence University economist Steven Horwitz agrees both that inflation is already happening and that it is widely misunderstood. Monetarists, he says, were “too focused on aggregates like ‘the’ price level, which led economists to ignore the way inflation could distort individual prices at the microeconomic level, causing resource misallocation in the process.” Virtually all economists now agree, for example, that the Fed’s low interest rates inflated housing prices earlier in the decade. Yet as the prices of houses went up, few economists worried about inflation because the CPI looked relatively stable, due in part to a decrease in energy prices. When housing started to crash in 2007, many economists thought the Fed should inject still more funds into the system to stave off further declines. They failed to see that the Fed had distorted relative prices in the first place.

As the George Mason University economist Peter Boettke explains, “A problem with the current monetarists is that while they learned from Friedman the idea that we should fight inflation, in practice they learned from his writings on the Great Depression that central banks should fear deflation.” As a result, economists who are theoretically inflation-hating Friedmanites now want to meet every downturn by fighting deflation.

Because of this tendency, bursting government-created bubbles leads to the creation of new ones. The real lesson may be that inflation is not only a monetary phenomenon but also a political one. Which makes it that much more difficult to predict, much less control.

Contributing Editor Veronique de Rugy (vderugy@gmu.edu) is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Last summer President Barack Obama re-nominated Bernanke to another four-year term atop the central bank, a reward for allegedly saving the world from a second Great Depression. Bernanke will arrive at his Senate confirmation hearings this January with an unbeatable recommendation. “As an expert on the causes of the Great Depression,” Obama raved in August, “I’m sure Ben never imagined that he would be part of a team responsible for preventing another. But because of his background, his temperament, his courage and his creativity, that’s exactly what he has helped to achieve.”

“Mission Accomplished,” the banner might have read.

Missing from Obama’s speech was any mention of Bernanke’s economic philosophy. These days, the media have taken to calling him a Keynesian—a believer in fiscal stimulus and the mixed economy. “We are all Keynesians again,” the liberal Washington Monthly headlined a January 2009 feature on the Fed chief.

In reality, Bernanke is following a monetarist depression-prevention model laid out by Nobel laureate and libertarian patron saint Milton Friedman. The Fed chairman has invoked the late economist in support of lowering interest rates to zero and bailing out banks. Trillions of dollars have been staked on the insights of “monetarism,” the economic theory of central banking and inflation-management associated with Friedman and Anna Schwartz. Though Schwartz now distances herself from Bernanke, opposing his reappointment on the grounds that he’s gone too far, the irony remains that a series of Fed policies many libertarians find repugnant are being championed by a man claiming to take his chief inspiration from the most influential libertarian economist of the 20th century.

A Monetary History of Ben Bernanke

The story begins in 1963, when Friedman and co-author Anna Schwartz published A Monetary History of the United States, an opening salvo in what Friedman called a “counterrevolution” against Keynesian theory. Their chapter on the Great Depression was spun off into a stand-alone book, The Great Contraction: 1929–1933, an epic revisionist history that changed America’s understanding of the causes of the Depression. Friedman and Schwartz contended that the Federal Reserve—not capitalism or Wall Street—was to blame for the dismal ’30s.

“The fact of the matter is that it was the [Fed’s] decision to tighten credit policy in 1928 that produced the Great Contraction,” the 93-year-old Schwartz says by phone from her office at the National Bureau of Economic Research in New York City. The Fed hiked interest rates in 1928 to curb what it saw as rampant speculation on Wall Street—a conflagration of leverage, margin buying, and outright Ponzi scheming fueled in the first instance by cheap credit from the Federal Reserve. (Goldman Sachs’ various pyramid schemes from that era, after they collapsed in 1929, generated losses of $475 billion in today’s dollars.)

Friedman and Schwartz rejected the widely held theory that speculation had been a major problem, or that there had even been a credit bubble in the 1920s. Bad loans and reckless banking practices were a “minor factor,” at most, in the Great Depression, they said. In this narrative, a Federal Reserve paranoid about speculation had needlessly constricted the money supply, imploding an otherwise sound economy.

After the Great Crash of 1929, the Federal Reserve drastically cut interest rates from a brief high of 6 percent to 1.5 percent by mid-1931. But during the first few years of the crisis, the Fed occasionally felt forced to abruptly raise rates again in complicated maneuvers to stem outflows of gold into Europe. Friedman and Schwartz blamed these sporadic interest rate hikes for smothering incipient recoveries, opening a vortex of deflation, and transforming a recession into the Great Depression.

“What the Fed had to do was increase the money supply,” Schwartz tells me. “By taking that action, it would have revived the economy. That’s the lesson of the Great Depression.” In The Great Contraction, she and Friedman argued that the Fed squandered its ample latitude to combat deflation. “The monetary authorities,” they wrote, “could have prevented the decline in the stock of money—indeed, could have produced almost any desired increase in the money stock.”

When it comes to his academic specialty, Bernanke is a disciple of Friedman and Schwartz. In 2002, at Friedman’s 90th birthday party at the University of Chicago, Bernanke was effusive. “Among economic scholars,” he began, “Friedman has no peers.” He developed the “leading and most persuasive” explanation of the Depression, whose impact on economics and the popular mind “cannot be overstated.”

At the end of his encomium, Bernanke made a soon-to-be-famous apology on behalf of the Federal Reserve, where he was then president of the powerful New York branch: “I would like to say to Milton and Anna…regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.” (The speech was published as the afterword to the latest edition of The Great Contraction.)

Schwartz was present at the birthday party. “I’m sure he was sincere when he said that,” she says. And Bernanke stayed true to his word. In 2006 he replaced Alan Greenspan as chairman of the Federal Reserve. Greenspan, a self-described “libertarian Republican” who had once been part of Ayn Rand’s inner circle, had engineered an era of low-inflation growth that won Friedman’s endorsement. “There is no other period of comparable length in which the Federal Reserve System has performed so well,” Friedman declared in The Wall Street Journal on January 31, 2006.

Monetarism and Freedom

When the economy collapsed two years into Bernanke’s watch because of a massive credit bubble, he slashed interest rates to zero and ordered the money-printing presses to full steam. He also embarked on a course of “quantitative easing,” where a central bank convolutedly buys its own government’s bonds with printed money so as to sink interest rates even further.

This approach was not new. Friedman had prescribed quantitative easing, combined with “easy money” and inflation, as a cure for Japan’s 1990s economic slump, which he described as an “eerie, if less dramatic, replay of the Great Contraction.” As he did with the Depression-era Fed, Friedman emphasized that “there is no limit to the extent to which the Bank of Japan can increase the money supply if it wishes to do so.” In 1998, a year after Friedman penned his advice in The Wall Street Journal, Japan introduced monetary stimulus: a cocktail of zero interest rates and quantitative easing. But deflation continued. Today Japan’s exports are down an unthinkable 36 percent from just last year, and prices are plummeting at an all-time record pace.

Stateside, in the shadow of the Fed’s multi-trillion-dollar balance sheet, it has been all too easy to categorize Bernanke simply as a Keynesian supporter of public works projects, socialistic safety nets, and profligate, government-led consumption. While it’s true that the Obama ad-ministration is pursuing Keynesian fiscal stimulus, the Federal Reserve under Bernanke has consciously acted on the Friedman/Schwartz insight that loosening central bank credit is a fundamental tool in forestalling deflation and depression. Understanding that monetarism can mean both the management of low inflation in good times, and the creation of inflation in bad times, has proven too difficult for most of the media.

The New York Times, for instance, has identified Bernanke as “a student if not necessarily a devotee of the British economist John Maynard Keynes.” Actually, Bernanke spent most of his academic career elaborating on Friedman’s Keynes-refuting interpretation of the Great Depression. Athough his research sometimes strayed into nonmonetary subjects, it was always, as he said at Friedman’s birthday party, “an embellishment of the Friedman-Schwartz story…and in no way contradict[ed] the basic logic of their analysis.” In 2003, at a conference honoring Friedman’s Free to Choose, Bernanke said, “Friedman’s monetary framework has been so influential that, in its broad outlines at least, it has nearly become identical with modern monetary theory and practice.” So great was Friedman’s influence that Bernanke compared it with Shakespeare’s contributions to English literature.

Even Bernanke’s nickname “Helicopter Ben” derives directly from Milton Friedman. It came about during a 2002 speech entitled “Deflation: Making Sure ‘It’ Doesn’t Happen Here,” in which he quoted Friedman on the importance of conjoining fiscal and monetary policies. The ideal fiscal stimulus, Bernanke said, was a shower of tax cuts “equivalent to Milton Friedman’s famous ‘helicopter drop’ of money.” Friedman had originally used the phrase to counter Keynes’ idea of the “liquidity trap,” in which setting interest rates at zero leads to bank hoarding and leaves the Federal Reserve no room to maneuver. Friedman suggested that countries could escape the liquidity trap by handing out money to consumers, and he explained his argument in a tale about a helicopter unloading cash on a town. Likewise, Bernanke’s Federal Reserve has created special “vehicles” to disburse consumer credit from on high.

In February, Bloomberg News added to the philosophical confusion by reporting that “Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke is siding with John Maynard Keynes against Milton Friedman by flooding the financial system with money.” Of course, Bernanke has said precisely the opposite. He’s flooding the financial system with money during a deflationary crisis, he says, because that’s what Friedman would have him do.

On February 10, Bernanke further underscored his allegiance to Friedman in an overlooked Capitol Hill question-and-answer session with Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). Their exchange is worth quoting at length.

“Chairman,” Paul began, “you have written a lot about the Depression. There was a famous quote you made once to Milton Friedman, apologizing for the Federal Reserve bringing on the Depression. But you assured him it wouldn’t happen again.…But the key to this discussion has to be: Was it too much credit in the ’20s that created the conditions that demanded a recession/depression, or was it lack of credit in the Depression that caused the prolongation?…Here we’re working frantically to keep prices up. What’s wrong with allowing the market to dictate this…and prices to go down quickly so we can all go back to work again?”

In response, Bernanke repeated the lesson of The Great Contraction: “Milton Friedman’s view was that the cause of the Great Depression was the failure of the Federal Reserve to avoid excessively tight monetary policy in the early ’30s. That was Friedman and Schwartz’s famous book. With that lesson in mind, the Federal Reserve has reacted very aggressively to cut interest rates in this current crisis. Moreover, we’ve tried to avoid the collapse of the banking system.”

For her part, Schwartz is critical of Bernanke’s application of her and Friedman’s theories. “You don’t have to lower the interest rates to the extent that he has in order to increase the money supply,” she says. “The essential action should be increasing the money supply. That’s the lesson of the Great Depression.” She adds, “There’s nothing contradictory in The Great Contraction with reference to what the Fed should be doing currently.”

Schwartz is alarmed by the enthusiasm with which Bernanke has put “monetary expansion” into practice. She berates the Fed for going too far and predicts that it will have to raise interest rates “in the near future” to arrest inflation. Asked if she sees hyperinflation on the horizon, she exclaims, “Oh, yes!”

In a New York Times op-ed last July, Schwartz criticized Bernanke as a “man without a plan,” warning that his “easy monetary policy is a sin.” She concluded, “He does not deserve reappointment.”

Schwartz also seems to have undergone a late-life conversion to at least some part of Keynesian theory. Asked for her current solution to the crisis, she repeats the ultimate Keynesian maxim: The government should pick up slackening demand in the private sector.

“People are saving, not spending. In order to revive this economy,” she says, hesitating before continuing, “the government will have to resume spending. By spending, the government will require that the current inventory will be depleted and have to be replenished. And that will bring on additional production and jobs.”

Bernanke’s Money Mischief

Ron Paul, like Schwartz and Friedman, is a libertarian, but he embraces the “Austrian” school of economic theory that rejects the very concept of the Federal Reserve. He is critical of what he sees as the Fed’s ongoing monetarism. “In essence,” Paul says in a phone interview, “Bernanke is following Friedman’s advice. He’s a Friedmanite when it comes to massively inflating. Bernanke was able to justify [his policies] by using Friedman.”

Does Friedman’s enthusiasm for inflating the monetary supply in crises flout libertarianism? “Absolutely,” Paul answers. “The monetarists said that you could overcome a natural market correction of a collapsing system by inflation—print money faster! Which contradicts Friedman’s whole thesis. He wanted a steady, managed increase in the supply of money of about 3 percent.” Here Paul is alluding to Money Mischief, Friedman’s 1991 book in which he called on the Fed to grow the money supply at 3 percent annually, presumably forever. “Yet at the same time, Friedman said the Depression could have been prevented by massively inflating.” Paul has kind words for Friedman, whom he praises as a staunch defender of economic liberty, but his final summation is damning: “Friedman’s very, very libertarian—except on monetary issues.”

With Bernanke at the helm, the Federal Reserve has unleashed monetary expansion, the very definition of inflation—and Friedman’s blueprint for averting economic depression. According to Bernanke, Obama, and scores of economists, it’s working. “Prospects for a return to growth in the near term appear good,” Bernanke predicted in August.

But with lenders foreclosing on 358,000 homes that month, the commercial real estate market only beginning to collapse, a 20 percent annual fall in railroad freight, and unemployment projected to crack double digits any minute now, the much-vaunted recovery is no given. And if it isn’t working, we might still relapse into recession, or worse.

The total cost of the Fed’s monetarist-inspired program is mysterious. Paul, whose bill to audit the Fed is now co-sponsored by more than half of the House of Representatives, declares: “We don’t know for sure how much the Fed has spent—I’ve heard it could be $6 trillion. But we have no knowledge of what the Fed’s doing. All these dealings are very secret.” A Reuters estimate in late September pegged the Fed’s balance sheet around $2.1 trillion, with $111 billion doled out to banks every day through the Fed’s overnight discount window. Bloomberg News has sued the Federal Reserve for full disclosure, and we may soon find out the exact number. Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska has ordered the Federal Reserve to open its books, though the bank has filed an appeal.

Friedman and Schwartz, those champions of low inflation, have helped inspire the greatest monetary expansion in Federal Reserve history, a program of limitless market interventions and tireless money printing whose end game is likely to be a return to the bad old days of inflation that they fought for so long. For two libertarian champions of free markets and limited government, this unintended legacy has the ring of a world-historic irony.

Penn Bullock (penneth@gmail.com) is a freelance writer for Village Voice Media. He lives in Florida.

Here's a stimulus success story: In Arizona's 9th Congressional District, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending. At least that's what the website set up by the Obama Administration to track the $787 billion stimulus says.

There's one problem, though: There is no 9th Congressional District in Arizona; the state has only eight Congressional Districts.

There's no 86th Congressional District in Arizona either, but the government's recovery.gov Web site says $34 million in stimulus money has been spent there.

In fact, Recovery.gov lists hundreds of millions spent and hundreds of jobs created in Congressional districts that don't exist.

ABC's reporter Jonathan Karl drily notes that Recovery.gov was created to foster greater accountability and transparency in stimulus spending.

More here.

Hat tip: Amanda Carpenter of the Wash Times.

Last year, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick headed off to prison for using city funds to cover up an affair with a staffer. After a few months of an interim mayor, Bing stepped in to finish Kilpatrick's remaining time in office neither out of political ambition (he's announced he won't seek two terms) nor to get rich (he is donating his salary to the police department). The former Detroit Piston basketball legend who later made a fortune as an auto supplier genuinely wants to use his business acumen to save the city. But Detroit is much closer to the brink than many people acknowledge.

Detroit has been in trouble for decades. It has the highest taxes in Michigan, the highest murder rate in the country, and a dreadful public school system. Only 25 percent of high school students graduate each year. Its tens of thousands of abandoned homes offer safe haven to drug dealers and criminals. All of this has produced an exodus of businesses—there is no longer a single major department store in the city—and residents. Detroit's population is less than half of its peak of two million in the 1960s.

With the collapse of the auto industry over the past year and a half, things have gotten a lot worse. Unemployment is now touching Depression levels of around 30 percent—three times the national rate. Businesses that depend on the auto industry are shutting down and more residents are hitting the exits. This is accelerating the erosion of the city's tax base, producing a fiscal crisis that seems impossible to escape. The city's accumulated deficit is currently somewhere between $300 million and $400 million. No one knows for sure because the city has yet to submit its 2008 audit; its annual budget is about $3 billion.

Joe Harris, a former chief financial officer of Detroit, notes that when Bing took office this summer, the city had enough cash on hand to make payroll, pay vendors and meet other day-to-day needs for about 11 days. To make ends meet, Bing is planning to issue "tax anticipation" notes to lenders to raise $94 million against expected tax revenues. This money, along with the biannual property taxes that the city collected in August, might keep Detroit running through the end of the fiscal year next June.

But that won't address the underlying fiscal imbalances. For that problem, Bing wants to squeeze $5 million in savings every month by asking the city's roughly 13,000 workers to take a 10 percent pay cut, a 10 percent benefit cut, and a 10 percent staff cut. He also wants to privatize or outsource many city services and consolidate various departments. "Our people [city workers] need to understand that entitlement is gone," Bing told the Detroit News in August. "There are people who think we are job providers. We're service providers."

Bing is going to have a very hard time making the city's entrenched unions play ball. John Reihl, president of the American Federation of State, Council and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 207, regards Bing's talk of cuts as a personal insult. "It is just a way to mess with the unions," he told the Detroit News in July. "It's not our role to give anymore concessions."

So far Bing has shown little indication that he'll stand up to the unions. For the third time on Friday, Bing backed off on his threat to lay off more workers if unions don't accept a wage cut. Yet a recent study by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy found that if state and local government employee benefit packages in Michigan were limited to what is typical for Midwestern private sector workers—including those in unions—taxpayers would save as much as $5.7 billion annually.

The fiscal mess puts Bing in a Catch-22. He can't cut the city's taxes because the short-term hit to cash flow would leave the city unable to pay its bills. But without tax reform the city can't lure businesses back.

Detroit may simply not be viable in its current form. Political and economic leaders need to rethink the notion that the city can regain its former status as a major American metropolis capable of luring large companies with tax breaks—which was Kilpatrick's failed strategy.

Detroit now more closely resembles a frontier town that needs not flashy stadiums and art institutes but basic services: police, firemen, and good schools. Bing needs to confront the hard reality that the city needs to pare back its liabilities, identify infrastructure it can no longer afford to maintain, and (though this is anathema to Detroit's political class) perhaps auction off portions of its 140 square miles to neighboring counties, shrinking to a size that its diminished population base can support.

Short term, Detroit's best hope may be to go bankrupt. However, given Michigan law, which has never been tested because no city has ever filed for bankruptcy, it's unclear if even bankruptcy will fully release Detroit from the clutches of its unions and allow it to start over. The only thing certain is that fate is not kind to a city that allows unions to run amok.

Shikha Dalmia is a senior analyst at Reason Foundation and lives in metro Detroit. This article originally appeared in The Wall Street Journal.

Since your contribution is tax deductible that means your hard-earned money won't be stolen by Big Government and given to a bunch of dusky welfare leeches with no marketable skills. Instead your cash contribution will pay the salaries of a bunch of anti-social assholes with no marketable skills unless, of course, you think being a sneering prick devoid of any quantifiable emotional response to the pain of others or the ability to feel compassion or a twinge of sympathy for people less fortunate than yourself is a marketable skill.

Which it is, but only in states that still have the death penalty.

That "dusky" was an especially nice touch, especially since it came right next to a particularly swarthy-looking pic of Senor Fonz himself (who, not that it matters, is against the death penalty, as am I).

I quote not out of hate, nor tribal dog-whistling, nor even as a testament to the eternal malleability of the English language, but rather as an illustration of the world we've lived in for 41 years, and an explicit call for you to help give us 41 more years! 41 more years! 41 more years! When Democrats are in power, we are portrayed by their allies and apologists as racist, poor-hating Republicans who smoke pot so that we can better enjoy Dungeons & Dragons in our mothers' basements. When the other team's in charge, we're terrorist-n-criminal-lovin' Bill of Rights absolutists who live in a faux-hipster fantasy-land and secretly heart Democrats. There's a reason why these attacks come in the form of name-calling and eye-rolling rather than engaging the actual arguments: The facts are rarely on their side, and the best way to pre-emptively deflect wholly deserved charges of partisan hackery is to fling poo at the only political magazine you can think of who carries water for no political tribe whatsoever.

It's telling that when the Montagues run Washington, the same Capulets who hated us yesterday become our new best friends today. Whoever is out of power–and by definition, that's always the vast majority of us–finds strange nourishment in our mix of journalism, argumentation, and hot gals kissing lobsters. But as the Obama era rumbles along, ask yourself this: Who was critiquing Bailout Economics and too-big-to-failitis not just after January 20, 2009, but from Sept. 24, 2008 (not to mention the four decades prior)? Wasn't The Economist. Wasn't the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Wasn't the GOP nominee for president.

In a world where the Less Filling and Tastes Great brands of politics are steadily losing market share, and where the only long-term growth in the political arena is in a category called "Independents" (or, if you prefer, None of the Above), Reason is the only political magazine that takes true political independence–meaning independence from politics as well as from its two shrinking legacy parties–with a fundamental (if not quite fundamentally boring) seriousness. You'll be surprised how differently the world looks when you don't define yourself by team membership.

Actually, you won't be surprised, because you already read, watch, and interact with Reason. That's why we need your donation right the hell now. Let's push that needle up to 500 donors, people. Twenty-five bucks gets you a "Free Minds and Free Markets" bumper sticker, and the satisfying knowledge that somewhere, Jacob Weisberg is silently weeping. A hundred buys you a bumper sticker, a subscription, and either Brian Doherty's Radicals for Capitalism or Peter Bagge's Everybody Is Stupid Except For Me! Two-fifty gets you even more Reason gear, and $1,000 takes you to that wonderland that only two can share.

Antagonize your antagonists. Tweak the people who insult you while demanding your money. Re-declare your independence. And save Lobster Girl.

Donate to Reason today!

I'm embarrassed that my representatives think that government can subsidize the consumption of medical care without increasing the budget deficit or interfering with free choice.

It's a triumph of mindless wishful thinking over logic and experience.

The 1,990-page bill is breathtaking in its bone-headed audacity. The notion that a small group of politicians can know enough to design something so complex and so personal is astounding. That they were advised by "experts" means nothing since no one is expert enough to do that. There are too many tradeoffs faced by unique individuals with infinitely varying needs.

Government cannot do simple things efficiently. The bureaucrats struggle to count votes correctly. They give subsidized loans to "homeowners" who turn out to be 4-year-olds. Yet congressmen want government to manage our medicine and insurance.

Competition is a "discovery procedure," Nobel-prize-winning economist F. A. Hayek taught. Through the competitive market process, we producers and consumers constantly learn things that force us to adjust our behavior if we are to succeed. Central planners fail for two reasons:

First, knowledge about supply, demand, individual preferences and resource availability is scattered—much of it never articulated—throughout society. It is not concentrated in a database where a group of planners can access it.

Second, this "data" is dynamic: It changes without notice.

No matter how honorable the central planners' intentions, they will fail because they cannot know the needs and wishes of 300 million different people. And if they somehow did know their needs, they wouldn't know them tomorrow.

Proponents of so-called reform—it's not really reform unless it makes things better—have shamefully avoided criticism of their proposals. Often they just dismiss their opponents as greedy corporate apologists or paranoid right-wing loonies. That's easier than answering questions like these:

1) How can the government subsidize the purchase of medical services without driving up prices? Econ 101 teaches—without controversy—that when demand goes up, if other things remain equal, price goes up. The politicians want to have their cake and eat it, too.

2) How can the government promise lower medical costs without restricting choices? Medicare already does that. Once the planners' mandatory insurance pushes prices to new heights, they must put even tougher limits on what we may buy—or their budget will be even deeper in the red than it already is. As economist Thomas Sowell points out, government cannot really reduce costs. All it can do is disguise and shift costs (through taxation) and refuse to pay for some services (rationing).

3) How does government "create choice" by imposing uniformity on insurers? Uniformity limits choice. Under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bill and the Senate versions, government would dictate to all insurers what their "minimum" coverage policy must include. Truly basic high-deductible, low-cost catastrophic policies tailored to individual needs would be forbidden.

4) How does it "create choice" by making insurance companies compete against a privileged government-sponsored program? The so-called government option, let's call it Fannie Med, would have implicit government backing and therefore little market discipline. The resulting environment of conformity and government power is not what I mean by choice and competition. Rep. Barney Frank is at least honest enough to say that the public option will bring us a government monopoly.

Advocates of government control want you to believe that the serious shortcomings of our medical and insurance system are failures of the free market. But that's impossible because our market is not free. Each state operates a cozy medical and insurance cartel that restricts competition through licensing and keeps prices higher than they would be in a genuine free market. But the planners won't talk about that. After all, if government is the problem in the first place, how can they justify a government takeover?

Many people are priced out of the medical and insurance markets for one reason: the politicians' refusal to give up power. Allowing them to seize another 16 percent of the economy won't solve our problems.

Freedom will.

John Stossel will soon host Stossel on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of Give Me a Break and of Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity.

COPYRIGHT 2009 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Throughout Ayn Rand's career, no collaborator was closer to her than Nathaniel Branden, whom she once named her "intellectual heir." In Rand, Branden found a fearless advocate of individualism and of man as a heroic being. In Branden, Rand saw her vision come to life in flesh and blood. "She gave people a sense that they could be effective. That if they would persevere, stick by their standards, work hard, you could achieve something you can be proud of. Find that part in you—she would say ‘the hero in your own soul'—and work towards that," says Branden.

After a decade at the center of Rand's inner circle, Branden founded the Nathaniel Branden Institute with the goal of promoting her philosophy. The Institute was largely responsible for the spread of Rand's ideas during the 1960s, but came to an abrupt end when romantic conflict between Branden and Rand tore apart their professional association.

Despite the official and unreconciled split between the two, the 79-year-old Branden has remained true to the spirit of Rand's work during his prolific career as a psychologist of self-esteem. To this day, their legacies remain inseparable and in 2000, Branden authored My Years with Ayn Rand, his second memoir of his relationship to the author of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

Approximately 10 minutes. Nathaniel Branden was interviewed by David Nott, filmed by Alex Manning, and edited by Hawk Jensen and Alex Manning.  

This video is part of the Reason.tv series Radicals For Capitalism: Celebrating the Ideas of Ayn Rand. Go here for more information, other videos, and related materials.

Go here for embed code and downloadable versions.

Go here to subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel.

Arguably, no two people were closer to Ayn Rand than Barbara and Nathaniel Branden, whom Rand once named as her "intellectual heir." Indeed, when the Brandens married in 1953, the author served as bridesmaid (Rand had also urged the pair to wed).

A decade later, the Brandens would collaborate on the first biography of Rand, Who Is Ayn Rand? In 1986, Barbara published a second biography, The Passion of Ayn Rand, which eventually was made into an award-winning Showtime movie starring Helen Mirren. 

Despite the ruinous and controversial romantic affair between Rand and Nathaniel Branden, and her eventual ouster from Rand's inner circle, Barbara still feels fondly for the author of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. As Branden, now 80, recalls in this Reason.tv interview, "I felt like she's answering questions that I've been looking for answers for, and nobody's been giving me any sort of answer until now."

Approximately seven minutes. Interview by Seth Goldin, camera by Alex Manning, and editing by Hawk Jensen. 

This is part of the Reason.tv series Radicals For Capitalism: Celebrating the Ideas of Ayn Rand. Go here for more information, other videos, and related materials.

Go here for embed code and downloadable versions of this video.

This video is also available on Reason.tv's YouTube channel. Go here to subscribe.

Read all about it here.

While Massachusetts recipients of federal stimulus money collectively report 12,374 jobs saved or created, a Globe review shows that number is wildly exaggerated. Organizations that received stimulus money miscounted jobs, filed erroneous figures, or claimed jobs for work that has not yet started.

The Globe's finding is based on the federal government's just-released accounts of stimulus spending at the end of October. It lists the nearly $4 billion in stimulus awards made to an array of Massachusetts government agencies, universities, hospitals, private businesses, and nonprofit organizations, and notes how many jobs each created or saved.

But in interviews with recipients, the Globe found that several openly acknowledged creating far fewer jobs than they have been credited for.

One of the largest reported jobs figures comes from Bridgewater State College, which is listed as using $77,181 in stimulus money for 160 full-time work-study jobs for students. But Bridgewater State spokesman Bryan Baldwin said the college made a mistake and the actual number of new jobs was "almost nothing." Bridgewater has submitted a correction, but it is not yet reflected in the report.

In other cases, federal money that recipients already receive annually - subsidies for affordable housing, for example - was reclassified this year as stimulus spending, and the existing jobs already supported by those programs were credited to stimulus spending. Some of these recipients said they did not even know the money they were getting was classified as stimulus funds until September, when federal officials told them they had to file reports.

"There were no jobs created. It was just shuffling around of the funds," said Susan Kelly, director of property management for Boston Land Co., which reported retaining 26 jobs with $2.7 million in rental subsidies for its affordable housing developments in Waltham. "It's hard to figure out if you did the paperwork right. We never asked for this."

Governments that lie to you are not worthy of respect.

Link via Drudge. Reason Contributing Editor Veronique de Rugy on other bogus stimulus claims here, here, and here.

And tune in to The Ed Morrissey show by clicking here (show starts at 3PM with guest Andrew Malcolm of the LA Times).