Of Course, MSNBC Did This Before Trump Revealed More About That Deported Illegal...
How Abrego Garcia's Wife Reacted When Asked About Those Domestic Abuse Allegations Says...
Appeals Court Shuts Down Judge's Contempt Proceedings Against Trump Administration...For N...
Some Familiar Supreme Court Justices Joined Libs in Blocking Further Deportation Flights
This Is What a Wife-Beating MS-13 Member Said That Made a Dem Senator...
No, Chris Van Hollen, You Didn't Just Do *That* After Meeting Wife-Beating MS-13...
The Casualties of America's Loss of Glassware Manufacturing to China
The Democratic Party Is a Movement in Search of a Leader
Trump Can Put Biden's Socialist Healthcare Policies Out to Pasture
Why the West Is So Fascinated by Islam
Why Does Union Membership Keep Declining?
School Board Tells Crying Student to 'Wrap It Up' After Speaking Out Against...
Sean Duffy Gives Backhanded Compliment to Blue Origin’s 'Lady Astronauts' In Brutal Realit...
The NRA Rises Again
As the New Representative of the US in Israel, Ambassador Huckabee Represents So...
OPINION

Economic Stimulus and Other Outdated Quackery

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

As President Barack Obama and Congress wrestle over the ironically named economic stimulus plan, the ever-ready-to-serve media are churning out feel-good articles about the likely recipients of all that federal dough and how it would really help them. It's such a well-practiced act of reporting, it took a journalist with a thorough understanding of economics to show what was wrong with it.

Advertisement

That journalist was Henry Hazlitt (1894-1993), author of among other things Economics in One Lesson, a brilliant exposition on economic wisdom that is sorely needed in the District of Columbia and statehouses everywhere. (It's also available in pdf form from the inestimable Foundation for Economic Education).

Hazlitt's insight is as follows: "The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups." It's very simple, but it's devastating. It means considering the costs as well as the benefits of any proposal, not just for the group concerned but for everyone, and not just in the short term, but in the long term as well.

That requires an intuition that when politicians and their media me-toos promote a policy solely on the benefits to its benefactors, they aren't telling the whole story. They might not even be telling half the story. If they're not telling the public who will also be harmed by the policy, then they are putting their finger on the scales of public opinion, trying to tilt it their way.

Politicians and media cannot be relied upon to present the full picture of costs and benefits, of course. A responsible citizenry needs to develop this Hazlittian intuition. The great economist Milton Friedman was fond of saying "There's no such thing as a free lunch" (which was also the title of his book in 1975 published by Open Court). However you wish to phrase it, when politicians tout a new policy by how much good it's going to do for the ones it's going to help, the public should have enough sense to ask how much it's going to cost and who's going to pay for it. 

Advertisement

Start with Obama's stimulus package. Resorting to overturned Keynesian nostrums in the middle of a recession is as backwards as physicians today treating a deadly infection by bloodletting. Think about it: if more government spending truly stimulated the economy, then why is the economy in such a shambles after eight years of the Bush administration and Congress growing federal spending from $1.86 trillion in 2001 to $2.98 trillion in 2008?

Federal spending adjusted for inflation has increased by 48 percent since 2001 (60 percent in nominal dollars). A panicked rush to "save the economy" with a massive increase in federal spending now would be like trying to cure dysentery with Ex-Lax.

In the analogy, the laxative manufacturer would benefit. But don't tell the patient his physic is good for a pharmaceutical company and leave it at that. That's a load of symptom.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement