A recent back and forth between Paul Krugman and Russ Roberts on Keynesian economics reminded me of something I discussed briefly on twitter some time ago and wanted elevate it blog post level. Here’s what Russ said:
Krugman is a Keynesian because he wants bigger government. I’m an anti-Keynesian because I want smaller government. Both of us can find evidence for our worldviews.
Now there are many places where I think “better government” is more important than less government, and sometimes better even means more, but I’m broadly supportive of the notion that government should be smaller. And yet I find myself in much more agreement with Keynesian economists than those like Russ Roberts about what we should do about the recession.
But I think Russ’ point tends to be very true, and is exemplified by what, I think, Ezra Klein called “Now-More-Than-Everism”. This is when someone argues that the solution for any given problem is simply that their favored policies are needed Now More Than Ever. We find ourselves in an extended recession-like economy, obviously Now More Than Ever we need to gut the EPA, or Now More Than Ever we need green energy subsidies.
In the anti-spirit of this mindset I want to focus on Now-Less-Than-Everism. I’ll let Krugman go first:
“Here’s an example: is economic inequality the source of our macroeconomic malaise? Many people think so — and I’ve written a lot about the evils of soaring inequality. But I have not gone that route. I’m not ruling out a connection between inequality and the mess we’re in, but for now I don’t see a clear mechanism, and I often annoy liberal audiences by saying that it’s probably possible to have a full-employment economy largely producing luxury goods for the richest 1 percent. More equality would be good, but not, as far as I can tell, because it would restore full employment.”
Now my turn. I think education reform is a really important issue, and I think charter schools and some parts of the reform movement are extremely important. But we’re not going to get to full employment through education reform. And what we really don’t need right now is mass layoffs of teachers. Or postal workers. Structural adjustments are easier to make when we are at full employment, if these things need to come the future is better than now.
The home mortgage interest deduction is a terrible policy. And I don’t see any good reason why Fannie or Freddie should exist. But we need to get out of these bad policies now less than ever. The housing market continues to be a drag on the economy, and it’s worth putting off reforms until a time when so many homeowners aren’t underwater and are in a better position to absorb negative equity shocks. This isn’t to say we couldn’t begin instituting a long phase out to the deduction, but long term, smart, cautious reforms are needed here, not pulling the rug out. In full employment I’d support pulling the rug out.
Deregulation is important, and necessary, and too much regulation is a problem. But it’s not the problem the economy is facing right now. Attempts to focus on regulation are a distraction, and we’re not going to deregulate our way to full employment. We need to focus on deregulation now less than ever.
I am a creative destruction proponent and regulatory burden is a big long-term concern of mine. I wish that was what was causing our current malaise, I really do. Everyone likes to have their beliefs confirmed, and Now More Than Everism feels good. But it isn’t the problem.
So now it’s your turn. Help prove Russ Roberts’ cynicism wrong, and tell us what favorite policies of yours we need Now Less Than Ever. These can be things that either would be downright harmful now, or that we simply shouldn’t be focusing on and aren’t as important as actual recession cures.

21 comments
Comments feed for this article
Saturday ~ October 15th, 2011 at 8:17 am
q
is there some kind of model where the speed of information transfer is modeled, and you have fast and efficient information transfer speed at full employment, and slow, inefficient information transfer speed in a liquidity trap?
Saturday ~ October 15th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
JG
The insight from specialties that deal with information transfer (engineering specifically) is that it’s not just how much you transfer and how fast.
Usually transferring fast is the source of instability and problems. Speed pretty much always translates to instability if you have any feedback in the system. You literally recover stability by slowing certain things down.
It also matters what the “error rate” is. For example, computers and internet are real fast but shockingly low fidelity for anything that isn’t representable in a simplistic and rudimentary way. So fast but not usefully fast for many types of information.
Fast can increase the error rates of information used to make decisions resulting in making faulty decisions that then get amplified by the speed of the system cascading the small mistakes into very large mistakes.
Saturday ~ October 15th, 2011 at 9:21 am
Benny Lava
High speed rail. We need it now less than ever. I wish this country had a high speed passenger rail network, but that is a long term project that will employ relatively few people.
Saturday ~ October 15th, 2011 at 10:05 am
James
I applaud the general idea of this post, and ed reform and mortgage interest are good examples, but I think you go too far with:
“we’re not going to deregulate our way to full employment”
If we target the regulations that most directly keep people out of work- mostly occupational licensing, also regulations on hiring and firing- I think we could do exactly this.
Monday ~ October 17th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
maddem
What occupations would you waive licenses for?? Occupations have licensing requirements for a reason.
Tuesday ~ October 18th, 2011 at 9:38 am
Chad Brick
Beauticians. Seriously. What risk does an unlicensed beautician cause? A bad hair cut?
Beauticians do have a very small component of their training that is related to health and safety, which is probably a rational requirement. However, that would just be a few week, couple hundred dollar weekend course, not a one year, $10,000+ apprenticeship.
However, I agree with Maddem…most licensing requirements are there for a reason. Some requirements may need some streamlining, but there aren’t that many that should be cut entirely.
Saturday ~ October 15th, 2011 at 10:25 am
Lord
Reforming corporate taxes. They need it and it should be done, but no one should think that tax policy will do much to improve the economy. About the most it can do is create turmoil as corporations adjust.
Saturday ~ October 15th, 2011 at 11:58 am
Bernie
Cutting the military. I believe in the pre-WWII idea that the military should be mostly disbanded unless needed for war. A very small skeleton defensive force is all we need to maintain the structures that would be needed for war. Unfortunately as you say, we need this Now Less Than Ever.
Those serving now will not have any trouble finding a job. I retired from the military in July of 2009, when the unemployment rate was skyrocketing, and I had multiple job offers to choose from, but I displaced someone. Now is the wrong time to dump thousands of troops into the workforce.
Saturday ~ October 15th, 2011 at 10:45 pm
Now Less Than Ever | Brucetheeconomist's Blog
[...] piece I lift here focuses on the concept: Now Less Than Ever. The point being for policy makers to not [...]
Sunday ~ October 16th, 2011 at 7:15 am
adlai
A carbon tax or tdp system.. with everything going on the risk of regressing the tax system or choking up businesses/AD at a bad time strikes me as too large.
Sunday ~ October 16th, 2011 at 9:00 am
Policies We Need Now Less Than Ever « Economics Info
[...] Source [...]
Monday ~ October 17th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
gabrielrossman
I would say eliminating the mortgage interest deduction is my “now less than ever” idea.
Generally though, I worry that there’s a danger that “now less than ever” ignores the extent to which politics can be counter-cyclical to policy. For instance, take your example of postponing various public sector austerity/efficiency measures. Agreed that the ideal time to do this as a matter of policy would be during a boom, but the political reality is such that the only time it will be politically feasible is during a bust. It just defies political reality to say that you’ll be able to implement a massive lay-off at a time when we’re running a surplus (or anything close to it) since the obvious argument is “why are we laying people off when we can afford to keep them on.” (You see the same argument in the private sector, most recently with Verizon, that layoffs/givebacks are immoral if the firm is turning a good profit). The ideal compromise during a downturn would be short-term stimulus coupled to long-term austerity, but you run into credible commitment issues since we can’t bind future sessions of Congress and the state legislatures.
Anyway, the point is that “now less than ever” looks a bit different if you think of it as a question that involves political feasibility and not just optimal policy enacted by a benevolent dictator.
Wednesday ~ October 19th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
Don Delgado
Sounds cruel and sadistic. Hubba hubba!
Monday ~ October 17th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
Now Less Than Ever | The Militant Left
[...] but what about stuff you don’t like? “Help prove Russ Roberts’ cynicism wrong,” he says. “Tell us what favorite policies of yours we need Now Less Than Ever. These can be things that [...]
Monday ~ October 17th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
Devan
You touched on this, but green energy subsidies are my “now less than ever”. I love green tech, I think our dependence on fossil fuels is terrible both from climate and geopolitical perspectives; I even have solar panels on my house. But, we also shouldn’t be letting existing oil platforms sit idle when the vast bulk of their investment has already been paid for or not be taking advantage of carbon fuels when their commodity prices collapse. There will be a time when prices rise again that a structural transition to green tech will be more easier without adding additional friction to the economy. And subsidies for the whole energy industry in general would be better spent right now on providing/securing more jobs to the larger economy (which is something the energy industry as a whole does to a much lower extent than pundits on either side promote); let’s keep those teachers in their jobs and hire workers for infrastructure repair.
Tuesday ~ October 18th, 2011 at 8:52 am
The case for rehiring public workers « Cool Teaching Jobs
[...] and they have gone from unemployed to almost unemployable.Of late, economist Adam Ozimek has been asking people to list their “now-less-than-ever” ideas: Policies they would normally support, [...]
Tuesday ~ October 18th, 2011 at 9:33 am
Chad Brick
As a liberal:
Normally, I support running surpluses. Now I support running deficits.
Normally, I support raising taxes on everyone, a lot, immediately. Now I only support raising them on the plutocrats immediately, and everyone else later.
Normally, I would support slashing the military budget. Now, I only support a more gradual phase out.
Normally, I would support a quick phase out of the mortgage deduction. Now, the phase out needs to be slower.
Normally, I would support slashing ag subsidies. Again, the phase out now needs to be slower.
Boy, that was easy.
Tuesday ~ October 18th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Wonkbook: The case for rehiring public workers — Clearing and Settlement
[...] late, economist Adam Ozimek has been asking people to list their “now-less-than-ever” ideas: Policies they would normally support, [...]
Wednesday ~ October 19th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Now Less Than Ever: Tax Cuts! « Crazy Pills
[...] run in opposition to their worldview at any given time. He’s called this challenge “Now Less Than Ever.” Deregulation is important, and necessary, and too much regulation is a problem. But it’s [...]
Monday ~ October 24th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
Electronic Parking Meters Popular with Bethlehem Businesses
[...] would be tempted to add garage cashier layoffs to the “Now Less Than Ever” list of policies that are good to do when there’s full employment, but that we [...]
Thursday ~ October 27th, 2011 at 10:11 am
Mike Harris
I don’t have a constructive comment, I just wanted to say that this is a great post.