Best of the Week
Most Popular
1.Election Forecast 2015 - Opinion Polls Trending Towards Conservative Outright Win - Nadeem_Walayat
2.UK Solar Eclipse - End Time Sign, Judgement Day, Doomsday! - Nadeem_Walayat
3.Gold And Silver - When Will Precious Metals Rally? Not In 2015 - Michael_Noonan
4.Preparing for the Next Stocks Bear Market - Forecast 2015-2016 - Gary_Savage
5.Is a Stock Market Crash Imminent? - David Eifrig
6.Gold Price Slumps as US Dollar Soars, What's Next? - Nadeem_Walayat
7.US Dollar Forex Pairs and Gold Chartology - Rambus_Chartology
8.Election Forecast 2015: The Day Labour Lost the General Election - Nadeem_Walayat
9.The ECB Should End QE Next Month - EconMatters
10.Silver Price Poised to Surge - Zeal_LLC
Last 5 days
Election Forecast 2015 - Debates Boost Labour Into Opinion Polls Seats Lead - 30th Mar 15
Economic Recovery, Geopolitics and Detergents - 30th Mar 15
U.S. Dollar, Commodities and the Gold Miners GDXJ ETF Analysis - 30th Mar 15
Stock Market Short-term Downtrend - 30th Mar 15
David Cameron Election 2015 Debate Facts Check - Employment, Immigration, Debt & Deficit - 29th Mar 15
Stock Market About Ready to Crash! - 29th Mar 15
Reflections in a Golden Eye - Gold Market Rejection, Repatriation and Redemption - 28th Mar 15
Stock Market Inflection Point - 28th Mar 15
Gold And Silver - What Moved Price? Bab el-Mandeb And Uranus Square Pluto. What?! - 28th Mar 15
Stock Market Investment Parachutes; Do You Have Yours? - 28th Mar 15
Peak Gold Misunderstanding, is Gold About to Run Out? - 28th Mar 15
Deflation Watch: Key U.S. Economic Measures Turn South - 27th Mar 15
The Hard-Earned Truth About Recreational Real Estate - 27th Mar 15
Bitcoin Price Still in Important Territory - 27th Mar 15
Stocks Bear Market Conditions - Index Market Range Warning - 27th Mar 15
BEA Leaves Q4 2014 U.S. GDP Growth Essentially Unchanged at 2.22% - 27th Mar 15
Brazil Economy Victim of Vulgar Keynesianism - 27th Mar 15
Gold to Fuel Silver Price Upleg - 27th Mar 15
Gold and Silver Stocks Will Rise Again! - 27th Mar 15
Risk of ‘World War’ between NATO and Russia on Ukraine as Yemen Bombed - 27th Mar 15
FOMC Minutes Turned The Gold Tide - 27th Mar 15
Sheffield Hallam Election Battle 2015 - Lib Dems Go to War Whilst Labour Sleeps - 27th Mar 15
Gold Effect On Mining & Shale Wasteland - 27th Mar 15
How Stock Investors Should Play the 2016 Presidential Race - 26th Mar 15
MidEast Energy Alert: Why the Crisis in Yemen Could Get Ugly Very Fast - 26th Mar 15
Stock Market Downward Spiral of Dumbness - 26th Mar 15
The Monetary Approach Reigns Supreme - 26th Mar 15
Stock Market Large Gap Down, Despite the Algos' Push Back - 26th Mar 15
Crude Oil Surges, Gold price Spikes as Middle East Tensions Escalate - 26th Mar 15
The U.S. Housing Market Recovery Is Fabricated Optimism - 26th Mar 15
Why Yemen Is The Next Saudi-Iranian Battleground - 26th Mar 15
The Crude Oil Price Crash and China Economic Slow Down - 26th Mar 15
Global Financial Markets Are More Distorted Than Ever Before - 26th Mar 15
One More Stock Market Rally and Then a Huge Drop Expected - 26th Mar 15
Danger Will Robinson - Stock Market Crash Warning - 25th Mar 15
Learn the Basics of Corrective Elliott Waves - 25th Mar 15
Why CNBC Is Hazardous to Your Financial Health! - 25th Mar 15
Will Your Retirement Accounts Survive The Coming Tax Code "Revolution"? - 25th Mar 15
US Dollar - Americas Phoenix - 25th Mar 15
California’s Epic Drought: Only One Year of Water Left! - 25th Mar 15
What’s Wrong With Silver? - 25th Mar 15
SPX Futures Appear Weak. WTIC and Gold May Be at Max Retracement - 25th Mar 15
We’re at the Dawn of a “New Energy Age” - 25th Mar 15
A Very Weak U.S. Economic Recovery - 25th Mar 15
Zero UK CPI Inflation Rate Prompts Deflation Danger Propaganda For Fresh Money Printing - 25th Mar 15
Stock Market NYSE Hi-Lo Index Aggressive Sell Signal - 24th Mar 15
Palladium Commodity Price Forecast - 24th Mar 15
Bitcoin Price Gearing Up for a Fall - 24th Mar 15
Safety Deposit Boxes In UK Being Closed By ‏HSBC – Not Closing Gold Vaults - 24th Mar 15
Japan Short Term Gains And Long Term Disaster - 24th Mar 15
China's Fragile Evolution - 24th Mar 15
David Cameron Announces Resignation Even Before Being Re-elected, Handing Labour 6 Seats - 24th Mar 15
City of London's Ownership of American Colonies - 24th Mar 15
Stock Market Reversal May Have Begun - 24th Mar 15
Casey Gathers Top Gold Experts to Share Secrets for Making Money in Any Market - 24th Mar 15
Thoughts on The Current Crude Oil Market - 24th Mar 15
U.S. Economy Still on Life Support - What Your Governments Hiding From You... - 24th Mar 15
UK Election Forecast 2015 - Budget Bribes Fail, SNP Insurgency Catastrophe - Video - 24th Mar 15
Is Stock Market Minor Top Taking Hold? - 23rd Mar 15
Greece and EU Running Out of Time as Bank Runs Intensify - 23rd Mar 15
Stock Market Slightly Negative Expectations Following Last Week's Rally - 23rd Mar 15
This Rising Interest Rates Play Could Make You a Quick 55% - 23rd Mar 15
Platinum Commodity Price False Break Low - 23rd Mar 15
The Real Reason The American Dream is Unraveling - 23rd Mar 15
Election Forecast 2015 - Budget Bribes Fail to Impress Voters, Tory's Lose Seats in Opinion Polls - 23rd Mar 15
Silver Price Reliance During U.S. Dollar Rally - 23rd Mar 15
old Price Outlook Dramatic Improvement Following US Dollar Topping Action - 23rd Mar 15

Free Instant Analysis

Free Instant Technical Analysis


Market Oracle FREE Newsletter

US Economy Still on Life Support

Krugman's Call for a U.S. Housing Market Bubble To Fight Recession

Housing-Market / US Housing Feb 21, 2013 - 05:29 PM GMT

By: MISES

Housing-Market

Daniel James Sanchez writes: In 2009, Lew Rockwell posted this quote of Paul Krugman's from a 2002 New York Times editorial:

To fight this recession the Fed needs…soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. [So] Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.


Krugman. 2002. Calling for a housing bubble.

What's more, by explicitly calling for a new bubble to replace the recently burst one, he anticipated by 6 years The Onion's hilarious "report" that "demand for a new investment bubble began months ago, when the subprime mortgage bubble burst and left the business world without a suitable source of pretend income." Except Krugman was being serious.

The quote caught on in the blogosphere, to such an extent that Krugman actually responded in his New York Times blog:

Guys, read it again. It wasn't a piece of policy advocacy, it was just economic analysis. What I said was that the only way the Fed could get traction would be if it could inflate a housing bubble. And that's just what happened.

So with a deft little two-step, Krugman painted himself as a doctor who gave an excellent diagnostic, and not a disastrous prescription. One of his ditto-heads posted on his blog that saying Krugman advocated or caused the housing bubble was "Like saying Nostradamus caused the rise of European fascism."

Even economist Arnold Kling bent over backwards to interpret the column in a benign light:

He was not cheerfully advocating a housing bubble, but instead he was glumly saying that the only way he could see to get out of the recession would be for such a bubble to occur.

Mark Thornton on Mises.org followed up with a devastating collection of 2001 Krugman quotes clearly documenting his support for inducing a housing bubble. The most damning of this batch is the following from a 2001 interview with Lou Dobbs:

Meanwhile, economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer. [emphasis added]

How can anyone spin that as a purely academic musing, and not a policy recommendation for artificially inducing housing spending?

Ignoring the other quotes for a moment, and just judging from the 2002 column, did Krugman support pumping up a housing bubble or not? Given that, even in his blog post defending himself, he explicitly stated his belief that "the only way the Fed could get traction would be if it could inflate a housing bubble," there are only two possibilities:

  1. He did not support inducing a housing bubble, and wanted the Fed to not fight the recession.
  2. He did support inducing a housing bubble.

Anyone even somewhat familiar with Krugman's attitude toward Fed activism should know that proposition #1, that Krugman supported a do-nothing policy, is preposterous. So, especially after bringing back in the quotes gathered by Mark Thornton, the case for proposition #2 is overwhelming.

And what about his strawman protests that he didn't cause the housing bubble, much less the Enron scandal or Kennedy's assassination? The man is willfully missing the point. What is damning about these quotes is not that he necessarily caused anything. What is devastating about them is that they expose the intellectual bankruptcy of his economic principles. Those who look up to him as an economic sage should realize that the neo-Keynesian principles that led him to advocate aggressive interest-rate cuts and mammoth public spending now, are the very same principles that led him to advocate inducing a housing bubble then. He would himself affirm that his economic principles haven't fundamentally changed since then. So the conclusions and policy prescriptions he infers from them are just as wildly wrong now as they were then.

Krugman's first editorial could be twisted, if one was inclined to twist, into something seemingly benign. The second wave of quotes is much harder to mischaracterize (which is not to say that the most unquestioning of Krugman's devotees don't try). The laziest tactic of the Krugman apologists is to only address the more stretchable 2002 editorial, and completely ignore the 2001 quotes. But not even that approach, if accepted, helps Krugman's case, since the 2002 editorial is damning enough on its own, once the benign interpretations of Krugman's apologists are shown to be nonsense.

One protestation offered has been that a quotation offered above omits the context, which shows that Krugman was "merely" quoting someone else:

To fight this recession the Fed needs … soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. [So] Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

The last sentence quoted reads in full,

And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

"Partisan misquoting!" the apologists cry. But lets pull the lens back even further, and add even more context by including the whole paragraph, and the one preceding it.

A few months ago the vast majority of business economists mocked concerns about a ''double dip,'' a second leg to the downturn. But there were a few dogged iconoclasts out there, most notably Stephen Roach at Morgan Stanley. As I've repeatedly said in this column, the arguments of the double-dippers made a lot of sense. And their story now looks more plausible than ever.

The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble. [Emphasis added.]

So the first paragraph introduces the "double-dipper iconoclasts", and then clearly states that he, Krugman, agrees with them. The second paragraph then outlines the "basic point" of the double-dippers, which again, he agrees with. And the basic point in question is that to "fight this recession the Fed … needs soaring household spending."

Krugman then continues to say how the Fed would need to accomplish this goal, which again, he supports; he says that the recession needs to be fought with soaring household spending, which Alan Greenspan needs to induce by creating a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble. By writing, "as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it", Krugman is not "merely" quoting another person; he is using someone else's phraseology to express his own opinion.

Another protestation is that Krugman was saying the housing bubble won't work, since later in the editorial he wrote,

Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses? And a sober look at recent data is not encouraging.

But this protestation completely ignores the fact that when Krugman wrote in the editorial,

Despite the bad news, most commentators, like Mr. Greenspan, remain optimistic.

and

But wishful thinking aside, I just don't understand the grounds for optimism. Who, exactly, is about to start spending a lot more? [Emphasis added.]

he was clearly characterizing a housing bubble as an object to be desired, whether or not he thought it was possible. In other words, at best, Krugman could be interpreted as saying that it would be great if Greenspan could pull off a housing bubble, but that he, Krugman, doubts whether he'll be able to accomplish such a worthy feat.

So it should be clear that the Fed causing a housing bubble in order to bring about "soaring household spending" was Krugman's optimal situation, whether or not he thought it was doable at the time. Given the consequences of the housing bubble that did ultimately happen, that alone should be enough cause for the public to stop listening to this fellow.

Another question is, how did he see the Fed bringing about his optimal situation? He answered this question himself in a 2002 interview with Lou Dobbs (which can be found here, though not at the page originally linked to in Thornton's collection):

Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer. [Emphasis added.]

This brings us to the key point that all the Krugman apologists egregiously ignore: namely that it would be surprising if such an arch-Keynesian economist as Krugman (he's written extensively on what he has called "the greatness of Keynes") didn't adovocate a housing bubble to replace the dot-com bubble, since doing so would dovetail perfectly with basic Keynesian doctrine. As a Keynesian, Krugman should have wanted lower interest rates (as he actually did want, as is revealed by the previous quote). To quote Keynes himself,

Thus the remedy for the boom is not a higher rate of interest but a lower rate of interest! For that may enable the so-called boom to last. The right remedy for the trade cycle is not to be found in abolishing booms and thus keeping us permanently in a semi-slump; but in abolishing slumps and thus keeping us permanently in a quasi-boom. (General Theory, p. 322; emphasis added, but the exclamation point is Keynes's own.)

To be true to his Keynesian principles, Krugman ought to have to welcomed the housing bubble, since to him,

  1. it was a good way to achieve his coveted "soaring household spending", and
  2. it was the likely result of Keynesianism-prescribed lower interest rates.

Now let's take a look at some even more directly damning evidence of Krugman's pro-bubble economics. Above, I pointed out that in Krugman's 2001 editorial, he implicitly agreed with the Onion's facetious call for a new bubble to replace the old one. In a brilliant comment left in Krugman's own blog (which you can still read), one "M Ingelmo" reveals that in 2009 Krugman explicitly agreed with the Onion piece.

Mr. Krugman,

I don’t know if you were on the grassy knoll, too, but you certainly were in Spain in March, chatting with that most fervent of your admirers, Prime Minister Mr. Zapatero, and interviewed in the Spanish public TV channel.

Since these days a video is worth a thousand words, allow me to quote you and say: "guys, watch it for yourselves". The program is about other things, innovation, and in Spanish (sorry), so go straight to the 35 seconds in the interview after minute 2:50. Under the Spanish translation I’m sure you’ll be able to hear the English original. Quite enlightening:

To be honest, a new bubble now would help us out a lot even if we paid for it later. This is a really good time for a bubble…

There was a headline in a satirical newspaper in the US last summer that said: "The nation demands a new bubble to invest in" And that’s pretty much right.

http://www.rtve.es/mediateca/videos/20090502/innovar-para-salir-crisis-informe-semanal/495712.shtml

Not a piece of policy advocacy? Just economic analysis? Will it look like it to all your defenders and commentators here? Personally I am delighted with the words "pay for it later"; are we paying right now for the last one, advocated in 2002, or maybe not enough yet, Mr. Krugman?

If governments follow your "not-a-piece-of-policy-advocacy-just-economic-analysis", (as it seems certain at least with ours), when that new bubble thus inflated eventually bursts, and we are "paying for it" in a few years time, what will you write in your blog then, Mr. Krugman?

But perhaps the most instructive lesson out of all this is that, implicit in Krugman's quotes, there is a big fat finger of blame pointed directly (and correctly) at the Federal Reserve. Krugman himself would only admit to blaming other factors for our present crisis. But, if

"It would be surprising if such an arch-Keynesian economist as Krugman didn't adovocate a housing bubble to replace the dot-com bubble…"
  1. as any sane person will recognize in hindsight, the housing bubble was disastrous for the economy
  2. as Krugman himself stated, the Fed can induce such a bubble by lowering interest rates, and
  3. as the public record shows, the Fed did drastically lower interest rates in the time leading up to, and in the thick of, the housing bubble,

...then according to the vanishingly few economic principles Krugman actually gets right, he should blame the Fed for the present crisis.

As it turns out, Krugman's apologists shouldn't demand more context for his notorious quotes, since it only shines even more light on how backward are his economic doctrines and prescriptions.

Comment on this article.

Daniel James Sanchez is editor of Mises.org and director of the Mises Academy. Friend him on Facebook. Send him mail. See Daniel James Sanchez's article archives.

You can subscribe to future articles by Daniel James Sanchez via this RSS feed.

© 2013 Copyright Daniel James Sanchez / Ludwig von Mises Institute- All Rights Reserved Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisors.


© 2005-2015 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.


Post Comment

Only logged in users are allowed to post comments. Register/ Log in

Free Report - Financial Markets 2014