Really quickly, this Brian Westbury quote is brilliant because it is so perfectly, delectably wrong. Its the kind of thing you dream a student will say so that you correct the entire class’s misunderstandings in one fell swoop.
Money for stimulus programs has to come from somewhere and he argues that stimulus spending is similar to the old adage: “borrowing from Peter to Paul.”
“They (the government) either had to tax it from somewhere or borrow it from somewhere," says Wesbury and “by moving resources out of one sector into another you have now messed up the natural order of things and you’ve influenced it in a negative way."
Wesbury says THAT is the mistaken belief about government stimulus.
Different professors will approach this different ways but I prefer to go at it like this:
You’re exactly right Brian. The money has to come from somewhere. However, remember money and production are not the same thing. In the case of money, we have a technology known as the printing press which allows us to print money as much money as we want. So creating money is no problem.
Won’t that cause inflation?
Yes, but we are below inflation targets right now, not above. We want more inflation. Right now the Fed is trying to get more inflation but is having trouble. Stimulus spending will help them out with that.
But, you can’t get something from nothing, can you?
No, you most certainly can’t. However, we aren’t getting something from nothing. We are getting something by combining together unemployed workers and idle factories. Remember a recession is a time when we have increasing unemployment and declining capacity utilization.
We have factories without workers and workers without factories. Those are resources that could be used to produce things but are not being used. If we can get those resources to work will be able to make more things.
Unfortunately, we can’t and ultimately its because the economy doesn’t have enough money. Luckily we can print as much of that as we need.

8 comments
Comments feed for this article
Wednesday ~ September 1st, 2010 at 4:52 pm
RickRussellTX
Although you didn’t address a key point, which is that government creating money (say, by issuing debt) doesn’t actually cause factories to employ workers. The only employment that government can explicitly create is direct employment of government workers*
When money is given to private companies — perhaps for good reasons, too often due to cronyism — it may be lost to corruption, misused and wasted with little oversight.
Granted, this may not be quite as bad as dropping money out of helicopters, but implicit in your statement that lack of money is the problem is the unseen effect of government taking money from citizens and businesses in the form of taxes, all the while “creating” (i.e. borrowing) money through various means to give back to businesses and institutions that they favor. Isn’t this the malinvestment (e.g, “Rob Peter to pay Paul”) that Mr. Wesbury refers to?
Why is this implicitly better — or let’s say more effective — than letting productive people and businesses keep their hard-earned money so that they can invest in new projects and wealth-creating activities?
* And yes, I realize that the Fed can create money through manipulation of reserves, etc in ways that do not especially favor one firm over another. For now I’m confining my complaint to fiscal rather than monetary policy.
Wednesday ~ September 1st, 2010 at 5:43 pm
jazzbumpa
Since it’s about Krugman, there might as well be a link to what he has to say in response.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/wrong/
Westbury is a card-carrying supply-sider, which means you can count on him to be wrong, by definition. In the video, he makes up a totally fallacious comment about Reagan, and attributes it to Krugman.
Rick -
Why is this implicitly better — or let’s say more effective — than letting productive people and businesses keep their hard-earned money so that they can invest in new projects and wealth-creating activities?
Well, for openers, they’re not doing it, are they.
You’re echoing Fama and Cochran from early 2009. By your reasoning, the stimulus didn’t work. Check the employment data.
http://jazzbumpa.blogspot.com/2010/07/welcome-to-lost-decade.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-jobs-lost-in-the-bush-and-obama-administration-2010-2
Cheers!
JzB
Thursday ~ September 2nd, 2010 at 4:06 pm
RickRussellTX
I said: (let) “productive people and businesses keep their hard-earned money so that they can invest in new projects and wealth-creating activities”
JazzBumpa said: Well, for openers, they’re not doing it, are they.
I’m not sure I understand the pronoun references. Do you mean that the government is not cutting taxes? Or do you mean that taxes have been cut, and citizens and businesses are not investing in wealth-creating activities?
Unfortunately, the Bush-era tax cuts were gimmicky, to say the least, and designed to help his cronies in the 99th percentile of wage earners. So I’m not really surprised that such tax cuts didn’t do much for the economy.
In that respect, perhaps cronyism cuts both into the tax structure AND the stimulus structure.
However, as an admitted fiscal conservative, I would be curious to see what the effect of a balanced tax cut program (i.e., no weird gimmicks and gerrymandering) AND a commitment to lower spending would do. If you lower taxes without cutting spending (the Bush way), then you may release more cash into the economy, but you also increase the risk premium.
> You’re echoing Fama and Cochran from early 2009.
> By your reasoning, the stimulus didn’t work.
I’m not asserting that stimulus doesn’t work. I’m asserting that stimulus, unless done carefully to avoid favoring one population segment or industry, constitutes a form of malinvesment (or worse outright waste) that will not lead to lasting recovery. Cash for clunkers, “weatherizing”, giving money to state governments — where is the planning and oversight, where is the analysis that will show how cherry-picking specific industries and activities is better than letting the markets sort it out?
Monday ~ September 6th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
RickRussellTX
Hey, look, there’s Karl Smith making 1/2 the argument that I just did
.
Now if we combined payroll tax reductions with solid commitments to reign in government spending, we might see some real recovery.
Wednesday ~ September 1st, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Rebecca Burlingame
Okay, my turn at bat. Yes, more money in the system. But how is that money getting accessed? Perhaps companies are indeed getting loans so that they can pay workers. But one of the first places a lot of that money-for-loan still shows up is…housing loans, even though a bit slower lately. Because this is one if the first places money in the system tends to show up, the prices on homes go up accordingly, and people still have less money to spend on all those other products that the companies would be manufacturing, were someone buying them. Money needs to come into the system in a more balanced manner.
Wednesday ~ September 1st, 2010 at 6:47 pm
Wesbury Takes the Long View « Modeled Behavior
[...] Karl, NGDP, Prediction, Rates, Recession, Reserve, Smith, Wesbury | by Niklas Blanchard Karl has a post today arguing that Brian Wesbury is wrong for taking the view that fiscal stimulus is not effective [...]
Friday ~ September 3rd, 2010 at 11:28 am
Matthew Yglesias » Does The Money Have to Come From Somewhere?
[...] about how the money has to come from somewhere. A fallacy that’s so commonsensical that even reasonable well-informed conservative economists sometimes fall into it. The problem, I think, is that because one of the functions of money is to [...]
Thursday ~ September 9th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
bigbalagan
My favorite way to de-reify money is to paint a scenario of one dollar changing hands x times during period y, then ask “how much money is involved”? Unfortunately many currently popular political “economic” positions are credible only in completely simple and static models (like, “increasing the deficit chokes off the economy”, which appeals to the mundane fact that if you owe more you can buy less). Economists have not helped matters here by wandering off into abstruse flights of calculitic sophistry at the expense of common understanding. But its still the only game in town because it is (or should be) about How the World Works…