Join the Discussion

Reply
Report this post

Dear Mr. Stossel, I feel compelled to respond to a number of points you made in your “Arrogant Conceit” article, published December 24th, 2008. First, I take issue with your argument against Obama's intervention in the economy, in which you compare his recovery effort to a planned economy. I believe that this is a spurious comparison. I agree with you that a completely planned economy would be a utopian imposition, in which planning the economy translates into planning people's lives. Yet this does not characterize the US' current economic system, which is, and has been, a mixed economy for almost a century (if not longer). Instead, you engage in black and white thinking, ignoring nuance. Moreover, in some ways, government intervention does not stifle freedom, but allows it. By freedom, I mean the ability to directly control one's future. An individual, by themselves, cannot build a school, a hospital, or a wind turbine, if they desire an education, health care, or a healthy environment for their children. Instead, the government is often required to provide these public goods that allow the individual the freedom to live as they choose. Second, you write that, “Any money the government spends must be taxed, borrowed or conjured out of thin air by the Federal Reserve, and that will reduce sound private investment.” This is generally true, and most times would be a strong argument against government spending—which raises interest rates, thereby crowding out investment. Yet this argument is not applicable to present conditions. Interest rates are currently set by the Fed at 0%-.25%. In fact, it would appear that we are in the midst of a liquidity trap (an idea supported by both the liberal Paul Krugman and the conservative George Mankiw), in which fiscal policy is the only means of stimulating the economy, because monetary policy is no longer efficacious. Yet you write that Obama's efforts will impede recovery. Now you may be right about "regime uncertainty," a topic of which I am completely ignorant. Yet the points I have raised above are covered in any basic macroeconomics class. Your ignorance of them, or your willingness to ignore them, is (no offense), infuriating. To utilize a pubic forum for what appear to be no more than ideological talking points, while ignoring sound, non-partisan scholarship, I find to be truly “arrogant.” As an example of an ideological talking point, you write, “The way to a lasting recovery is to greatly lighten the burdens of government. Then free Americans will save and invest.” Yet, if this were true, where were the savings throughout the Reagan and Bush Sr. years? How do you account for the fact that countries like China, with substantial government intervention, have individual savings rates of about 30% of household income? States and markets each have strengths and weaknesses, and neither can solve all of our problems. Together, on the other hand, they compliment each other. It's time we moved beyond outmoded thinking based on a simplistic state/market dichotomy. Sincerely, Will Flagle Golden, Colorado