Government borrowing doesn't always crowd out private borrowing
Four years after the end of the presidency that must not be named, Republicans are no closer to figuring out what went wrong or what comes next.
Sure, the GOP has decided Bush spent too much, but there's been little other reckoning (outside of wonks like David Frum, Reihan Salam, and Ross Douthat). After all, it's hard to see what fiscal profligacy had to do with stagnant median incomes, rising healthcare and college costs, and a fragile financial system -- and harder still to see what remedies the Republicans have to offer. When it comes to policy, the GOP is stuck in 1980: lower taxes, less regulation, and more drilling for oil are always and everywhere the answer, no matter the question. (No, really).
Even Obama's reelection hasn't been enough to wake the Republicans from their Reagan von Winkle slumber. The GOP has chosen re-branding over rethinking. In other words, they think they have a messenger, not a message, problem -- and that's where Marco Rubio comes in. As Jonathan Chait of New York explains, Rubio offers the party an appealing, young salesman for its same, old policies, immigration aside. It was no accident his response to the State of the Union was so devoid of anything resembling new thinking. It was the point. Indeed, Rubio just rounded up the usual talking points, saying, among other things, that the government was a major cause of the housing bubble (it wasn't), and that Washington needs a balanced budget amendment (it very much does not). These are certainly cringe-worthy mistakes, but Rubio's biggest one is even more fundamental. He doesn't think the government can create jobs, except when it does.
Every dollar our government borrows is money that isn't being invested to create jobs. And the uncertainty created by the debt is one reason why many businesses aren't hiring.
Rubio has fallen victim to one of the classic economic blunders. It's called Say's Law, and it's not, in fact, a law. It's more like a guideline. The idea is that supply creates its own demand, which is true enough during booms, but not so during busts. The underlying logic here -- producing goods gives you the income to buy other goods -- makes sense, but only as long as you don't include money. Then everything falls apart. We'll return to why money is the root of all depressions in a second, but first, let's think about what it would mean if Say's Law were true. It would mean a world where demand can never lag supply; where unemployment is either voluntary or transient (when people switch jobs); and where government spending can never help the economy. After all, public borrowing has to come from somewhere, and a dollar the government borrows is a dollar the private sector doesn't. In other words, government borrowing "crowds out" private borrowing, pushing up interest rates as it competes for funds.
But this is terribly wrong. In the real world, people are out of work because they can't find work, not because they don't want it; the Great Recession has not been a Great Vacation. Supply doesn't always create its own demand, because demand for money might increase. In other words, people might hoard money. Now, "hoard" probably brings to mind people frantically stuffing money into mattresses, but it's a bit different than that today. It means households don't want to spend, and businesses don't want to invest, and banks don't want to lend. There's an excess of desired savings over desired investment -- or, as it's more commonly called, a recession. The Fed can make hoarding less appealing by cutting interest rates to inject money into the economy, but it can't do so now, at least not easily. Interest rates are already at zero, and unconventional money-printing hasn't been quite as effective. In short, the Fed hasn't been able to get us to stop hoarding right now.
That leaves two options: depression or deficits. In other words, either nobody borrows the unborrowed money, or the government does. If nobody does, the economy will contract by as much as isn't borrowed; if the government does, the economy will (at least) stabilize. As Matthew Yglesias of Slate points out, it's easy enough to tell the government is borrowing money that otherwise wouldn't be today, since interest rates have fallen despite big deficits. There has been no crowding out.
But it turns out we are actually all Keynesians now, even Marco Rubio. At least when it comes to military spending. (Though he's hardly alone with this cognitive dissonance). Here's what he told HispanicBusiness.com last September about the upcoming sequester cuts set to hit the Pentagon:
Thousands of jobs in defense-related enterprises have been lost already, with many more projected to go if the sequester crisis is not averted. These defense cuts hurt innovation, medical research and thousands of small businesses who subcontract for defense-related work.
Rubio is actually a pretty ambitious Keynesian! Not only does he think the government can create jobs, but he also thinks those jobs create other jobs -- that is, there's a multiplier on government spending.
Narcissism, disagreeableness, grandiosity—a psychologist investigates how Trump’s extraordinary personality might shape his possible presidency.
In 2006, Donald Trump made plans to purchase the Menie Estate, near Aberdeen, Scotland, aiming to convert the dunes and grassland into a luxury golf resort. He and the estate’s owner, Tom Griffin, sat down to discuss the transaction at the Cock & Bull restaurant. Griffin recalls that Trump was a hard-nosed negotiator, reluctant to give in on even the tiniest details. But, as Michael D’Antonio writes in his recent biography of Trump, Never Enough, Griffin’s most vivid recollection of the evening pertains to the theatrics. It was as if the golden-haired guest sitting across the table were an actor playing a part on the London stage.
“It was Donald Trump playing Donald Trump,” Griffin observed. There was something unreal about it.
Beginning in July of this year, most everywhere we look, there will be a giant number on our food. The change will affect hundreds of thousands of edible products, and, so, hundreds of millions of people. It will affect the way we think about food for decades. (This update is the first in more than 20 years—so long ago that the FDA earnestly describes its current label design as “iconic.”)
Current nutrition labels, legally required on all packaged foods, are to be be replaced with the explicit purpose of improving people’s health. As Michelle Obama said at the unveiling of the new labels on Friday, “Very soon, you will no longer need a microscope, a calculator, or a degree in nutrition to figure out whether the food you’re buying is actually good for our kids.”
For centuries, philosophers and theologians have almost unanimously held that civilization as we know it depends on a widespread belief in free will—and that losing this belief could be calamitous. Our codes of ethics, for example, assume that we can freely choose between right and wrong. In the Christian tradition, this is known as “moral liberty”—the capacity to discern and pursue the good, instead of merely being compelled by appetites and desires. The great Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant reaffirmed this link between freedom and goodness. If we are not free to choose, he argued, then it would make no sense to say we ought to choose the path of righteousness.
Today, the assumption of free will runs through every aspect of American politics, from welfare provision to criminal law. It permeates the popular culture and underpins the American dream—the belief that anyone can make something of themselves no matter what their start in life. As Barack Obama wrote in The Audacity of Hope, American “values are rooted in a basic optimism about life and a faith in free will.”
When new countries rise to power, the transition can end badly, often in war. Harvard’s Graham Allison has argued in The Atlantic that “judging by the historical record, war is more likely than not” between the United States, the world’s current reigning superpower, and China, a rising military and economic force. There is considerable debate on this point, but American pundits and presidential candidates often talk as if China were already an American adversary; Donald Trump has warned, for example, that China will “take us down.” Yet few in the United States seem worried about Asia’s other rising giant, India.
To the contrary, there’s a temptation to support India, a like-minded democracy, as a counterweight against the growing power of authoritarian China. But if American leaders feel confident India can accumulate power without becoming an antagonist, can they find a way to make the same true for China?
The author Moira Weigel argues that the various courtship rituals of the past hundred-odd years have reflected the labor-market conditions of their day.
Love, it turns out, has always been a lot of work.
While every generation will lament anew the fact that finding love is hard, history seems to indicate that this particular social ritual never gets any easier or less exciting. In Labor of Love, a new book documenting the history of dating in America, Moira Weigel, a Ph.D. candidate in comparative literature at Yale University, confirms this lament: Since dating was “invented,” it has always been an activity that required a lot of effort.
As part of her research, Weigel read dating-advice books from the 1800s and hundreds of articles on dating from teen and women’s magazines over the years, and she found two common themes: First, there is usually an older part of the population that perceives dating to be “dying,” or, at least, as not being done “appropriately.” Second, Weigel found that the way people date has almost always been tied to the market forces of their era.
Recent polls shown increasing support for the former governor, who’s hoping to win the Libertarian Party’s nomination this weekend.
If Gary Johnson wants to make it onto a primetime presidential-debate stage as the Libertarian Party’s nominee, he needs to qualify by polling above 15 percent. If he wants to be the nominee, he needs a strong showing at the party’s convention this weekend. And if he wants a strong showing at the convention, he needs to demonstrate to delegates that he’s their party’s ideal standard-bearer—a candidate who can be even a little competitive in a three-way matchup with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Johnson just got good news: A poll released Tuesday morning shows the candidate with 10 percent of the national vote.
The Morning Consult survey puts Clinton at 38 percent, Trump at 35 percent, and Johnson, the two-term former New Mexico governor who also ran for president in 2012, trailing with 10 percent. For any other candidate, that low number would be a sign that the end is near. But not for Johnson, or other third-party candidates hoping to make it big in an election year when many voters will likely hold their noses as they cast their ballots. The 10-percent figure is close to a personal best for Johnson as a presidential candidate; poll analysts note that it is roughly twice as high as Johnson’s figures from the last cycle.
It’s not easy fitting 1.2 million annual visitors onto an island of 330,000 residents.
Iceland may be beautiful, but it’s dangerously close to full. This is the message currently filtering out from the North Atlantic island as it struggles to absorb unprecedented numbers of visitors. Last year, the nation hosted 1.26 million tourists, a staggering number for a chilly island whose population barely scrapes past 330,000 citizens.
Those numbers are powered partly by a “Game of Thrones Effect” that has seen fans of the TV series flock to its shooting locations. The 2010 eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano, which has since become a tourist attraction, also helped to push up its profile as a vacation spot—perversely so, given that the eruption initially led to 107,000 flights across Europe being canceled. Given the rocky waters the country has been sailing through since the 2008 financial crisis, the revenue brought in by this spike in tourism is no doubt welcome. But the sheer volume of visitors to what was until recent decades a remote part of the world is still causing major stress. So how can Iceland keep welcoming people while making sure it isn’t trampled underfoot?
Petty political fights distract from the Vermont senator’s goal of a long-lasting movement.
Bernie Sanders’s beliefs have been obvious from the start. He thinks wealthy elites exert too much influence over American politics. He wants the U.S. government to lessen income inequality. He believes climate change is a pressing threat to the world. The clarity and overarching ambition of his agenda has been central to his appeal and expectations-defying political success so far.
If Sanders wants his political revolution to last, he will need to win widespread support for his ideas well into the future. Yet as the primary election draws to a close, the campaign has increasingly made arguments that may undercut the long-term viability of the movement that has coalesced around the Vermont senator.
A continuation of Valve’s acclaimed sci-fi series has been promised for 10 years, but seems no closer to fruition.
Ten years ago today, the video-game company Valve announced that Half-Life 2: Episode Three, the newest and much-anticipated chapter in its acclaimed sci-fi shooter series, would be out by the end of 2007. This was hardly surprising news: Valve had already released one episodic sequel to its smash hit Half-Life 2, and the second was due out soon. Still, news of Episode Three as “the last in a trilogy” was exciting to fans. Ten years later, they’re still waiting—and the new edition of Half-Life has gone from a eagerly awaited work to gaming history’s most famous piece of “vaporware”—a product announced to the public that the developer has no plans of actually making or releasing.
Since that announcement, Valve has released a dozen games, including the acclaimed Portal and Portal 2 and multiplayer smash hits like Left 4 Dead and Team Fortress 2. But Half-Life 2 sequels ended with Episode Two, and over the years, Valve’s party line on a new installment went from a firm commitment to vague promises to tight-lipped refusals to say anything at all. The longer things go on, the more impossible everyone’s expectations become—if a new Half-Life were ever released, the hype would be unimaginably hard to match, and yet Valve’s initial promise hasonly added to the franchise’s mystique.