We Are Live at Project Syndicate with "Conservative Interventionism"
8/5/09 10:32 PM
Grasping Reality with Both Hands The Semi-Daily Journal of Economist Brad DeLong: A Fair, Balanced, Reality-Based, and More than Two-Handed Look at the World J. Bradford DeLong, Department of Economics, U.C. Berkeley #3880, Berkeley, CA 94720-3880; 925 708 0467; delong@econ.berkeley.edu.
Support this weblog | About This Website | About Brad DeLong | This Weblog | Weblog RSS feed | Brad DeLong's Egregious Moderation | Order of the Shrill | Office Hours: Evans 601, by appointment, email delong@econ.berkeley.edu | Academic C.V. | John Yoo and the Torture Memo | Audio and Video Read the comment policy: no drive-bys, and if you bring information and humor you will be fine... 2009 - Financial collapse for America and her allies will be completed, leading to their demise. www.the-end.com
Weblog Home Page Weblog Archives Econ 115: 20th Century Economic History Econ 211: Economic History Seminar Economics Should-Reads Political Economy Should-Reads Politics and Elections Should-Reads Hot on Google Blogsearch Hot on Google Brad DeLong's Egregious Moderation July 28, 2009
We Are Live at Project Syndicate with "Conservative Interventionism" Khaleej Times Online - Conservative Interventionism: At this stage in the worldwide fight against depression, it is useful to stop and consider just how conservative the policies implemented by the world’s central banks, treasuries, and government budget offices have been. Almost everything that they have done – spending increases, tax cuts, bank recapitalisation, purchases of risky assets, open-market operations, and other money-supply expansions – has followed a policy path that is nearly 200 years old, dating back to the earliest days of the Industrial Revolution, and thus to the first stirrings of the http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/07/we-are-live-at-project-syndicate-with-conservative-interventionism.html
Page 1 of 4
We Are Live at Project Syndicate with "Conservative Interventionism"
8/5/09 10:32 PM
nearly 200 years old, dating back to the earliest days of the Industrial Revolution, and thus to the first stirrings of the business cycle. The place to start is 1825, when panicked investors wanted their money invested in safe cash rather than risky enterprises. Robert Banks Jenkinson, Second Earl of Liverpool and First Lord of the Treasury for King George IV, begged Cornelius Buller, Governor of the Bank of England, to act to prevent financial-asset prices from collapsing. “We believe in a market economy,” Lord Liverpool’s reasoning went, “but not when the prices a market economy produces lead to mass unemployment on the streets of London, Bristol, Liverpool, and Manchester.” The Bank of England acted: it intervened in the market and bought bonds for cash, pushing up the prices of financial assets and expanding the money supply. It loaned on little collateral to shaky banks. It announced its intention to stabilize the market – and that bearish speculators should beware. Ever since, whenever governments largely stepped back and let financial markets work their way out of a panic out by themselves – 1873 and 1929 in the United States come to mind – things turned out badly. But whenever government stepped in or deputised a private investment bank to support the market, things appear to have gone far less badly. For example, the US government essentially authorized J.P. Morgan to act as the country’s central bank in the aftermath of the 1893 and 1907 panics, created the Resolution Trust Corporation at the start of the 1990’s, and, together with the IMF, intervened to support Mexico in 1995 and the East Asian economies in 1997-98. At the very least, few modern governments are now willing to let financial market heal themselves. To do so would be a truly radical step indeed. The Obama administration and other central bankers and fiscal authorities around the globe are thus, in a sense, acting very conservatively, even as they embrace deficit-spending programmes, boost the volume of government bonds, guarantee risky private debt, and buy up auto companies. I understand what they are trying to do, and I am somewhat reluctant to secondguess them. They are all doing their absolute best, and I know that if I were in any of their shoes I would be making bigger mistakes than they are – different mistakes, probably, but bigger ones for sure. Nevertheless, I do have one big question. The US government especially, but other governments as well, have gotten themselves deeply involved in industrial and financial policy during this crisis. They have done this without constructing technocratic institutions like the 1930’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation and the 1990’s RTC, which played major roles in allowing earlier episodes of extraordinary government intervention into the industrial and financial guts of the economy to turn out relatively well, without an overwhelming degree of corruption and rent seeking. The discretionary power of executives, in past crises, was curbed by new interventionist institutions constructed on the fly by legislative action. That is how America’s founders, such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, envisioned that things would work. They were suspicious of executive power, and thought that the president should have rather less discretionary power than the various King Georges of the time. Yet, today’s crisis has led to the establishment of such financial institutions. So I wonder: why didn’t the US Congress follow the RFC/RTC model when authorising George W. Bush’s and Barack Obama’s industrial and financial policies? Why haven’t the technocratic institutions that we do have, like the IMF, been given a broader role in this crisis? And what can we do to rebuild international financial-management institutions on the fly to make them the best possible? RECOMMENDED (5.0) by 3 people like you [How? ] You might like:
Building Financial Regulatory Institutions on the Fly (@this site) in Which James Fallows Is a Frog Stepping into Global Warming Water Carrying a Hockey Stick... (@this site) 2 more recommended posts »
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/07/we-are-live-at-project-syndicate-with-conservative-interventionism.html
Page 2 of 4
We Are Live at Project Syndicate with "Conservative Interventionism"
8/5/09 10:32 PM
Brad DeLong on July 28, 2009 at 02:00 PM in Economics, Economics: Federal Reserve, Economics: Fiscal Policy, Economics: History, Obama Administration | Permalink TrackBack TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e551f0800388340115724260af970b Listed below are links to weblogs that reference We Are Live at Project Syndicate with "Conservative Interventionism":
Comments You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post. The Democratic Party, for reasons I've never quite grasped, has spent decades advocating federal government expansion without paying serious attention to the institutions and organizations that are needed. One might expect Democrats to have studied carefully the French bureaucracy, or the builders of the post-WWII Swedish Welfare state. But alas no. What does this mean for the US? That if massive government expansion comes, things could get pretty ugly. Posted by: CentralVA | July 28, 2009 at 02:31 PM The institutions already exist to address the unemployment crisis. They just are not being funded. Why? Because Congress has been captured by wealthy special interests. 1932 saw many of the Congressional tools of special interests voted out of office. 1932 elections Party Total seats (change) Seat percentage Democratic Party 313 (+97) 71.9% Republican Party 117 (-101) 26.8% We have too many special interest tools still holding office. Posted by: bakho | July 28, 2009 at 06:28 PM
Verify your Comment Previewing your Comment Posted by: | This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted. Post
Edit
Your comment could not be posted. Error type: Your comment has been posted. Post another comment The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again. As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments. Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate. Continue
Me:
Economists:
Juicebox Mafia: Moral Philosophers:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/07/we-are-live-at-project-syndicate-with-conservative-interventionism.html
Page 3 of 4
We Are Live at Project Syndicate with "Conservative Interventionism"
Paul Krugman Mark Thoma Cowen and Tabarrok Chinn and Hamilton Brad Setser
Ezra Klein Matthew Yglesias Spencer Ackerman Dana Goldstein Dan Froomkin
8/5/09 10:32 PM
Philosophers: Hilzoy and Friends Crooked Timber of Humanity Mark Kleiman and Friends Eric Rauchway and Friends John Holbo and Friends
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/07/we-are-live-at-project-syndicate-with-conservative-interventionism.html
Page 4 of 4