Paul Krugman's "capitulation" on Obamacare

Economic Policy Journal’s Chris Rossini showcases on the transitional capitulation by the popular economist Paul Krugman on Obamacare (hat tip Bob Murphy). 

From the EPJ: (bold original)

As an update to a previous post, I'm proud to announce that Truth and Paul Krugman have crashed into one another. It's in regards to Healthcare.gov, but hey, when worlds collide, it's only right to recognize it.

So let's look at the timeline (my emphasis):

Oct. 1 - "The glitches will get fixed."
Oct. 14th - "Obviously they messed up the programming big time, which is kind of a shock.But this will get fixed..."
Nov. 6 - "If the bugs in healthcare.gov get fixed..."

AND NOW .... Drumroll please!

Nov. 20 - "But the future of the reform depends not on policy per se but on whether the IT issues can be fixed well enough soon enough, a subject on which I have zero expertise."

There we go...Krugman has no clue. He had no business saying that anything would work. It took almost 2 months, but he got there.

Krugman’s changing view in the context of the Kubler Ross grief cycle.

This also serves as a wonderful example of today’s quote of the day.

Bastiat on The Case for Unilateral Free Trade

The great Frédéric Bastiat makes the case for unilateral free trade. (source Mises Institute)

We have just seen that whatever increases the expense of conveying commodities from one country to another — in other words, whatever renders transport more onerous — acts in the same way as a protective duty; or if you prefer to put it in another shape, that a protective duty acts in the same way as more onerous transport.

A tariff, then, may be regarded in the same light as a marsh, a rut, an obstruction, a steep declivity — in a word, it is an obstacle, the effect of which is to augment the difference between the price the producer of a commodity receives and the price the consumer pays for it. In the same way, it is undoubtedly true that marshes and quagmires are to be regarded in the same light as protective tariffs.

There are people (few in number, it is true, but there are such people) who begin to understand that obstacles are not less obstacles because they are artificial, and that our mercantile prospects have more to gain from liberty than from protection, and exactly for the same reason that makes a canal more favorable to traffic than a steep, roundabout, and inconvenient road.

But they maintain that this liberty must be reciprocal. If we remove the barriers we have erected against the admission of Spanish goods, for example, Spain must remove the barriers she has erected against the admission of ours. They are, therefore, the advocates of commercial treaties, on the basis of exact reciprocity, concession for concession; let us make the sacrifice of buying, say they, to obtain the advantage of selling.

People who reason in this way, I am sorry to say, are, whether they know it or not, protectionists in principle; only, they are a little more inconsistent than pure protectionists, as the latter are more inconsistent than absolute prohibitionists.

The following apologue will demonstrate this.

Stulta and Puera

There were, no matter where, two towns called Stulta and Puera. They completed at great cost a highway from the one town to the other. When this was done, Stulta said to herself, "See how Puera inundates us with her products; we must see to it." In consequence, they created and paid a body of obstructives, so called because their business was to place obstacles in the way of traffic coming from Puera. Soon afterwards Puera did the same.

At the end of some centuries, knowledge having in the interim made great progress, the common sense of Puera enabled her to see that such reciprocal obstacles could only be reciprocally hurtful. She therefore sent an envoy to Stulta, who, laying aside official phraseology, spoke to this effect: "We have made a highway, and now we throw obstacles in the way of using it. This is absurd. It would have been better to have left things as they were. We should not, in that case, have had to pay for making the road in the first place, nor afterwards have incurred the expense of maintaining obstructives. In the name of Puera, I come to propose to you, not to give up opposing each other all at once — that would be to act upon a principle, and we despise principles as much as you do — but to lessen somewhat the present obstacles, taking care to estimate equitably the respective sacrifices we make for this purpose." So spoke the envoy. Stulta asked for time to consider the proposal, and proceeded to consult, in succession, her manufacturers and agriculturists. At length, after the lapse of some years, she declared that the negotiations were broken off.

On receiving this intimation, the inhabitants of Puera held a meeting. An old gentleman (they always suspected he had been secretly bought by Stulta) rose and said, "The obstacles created by Stulta injure our sales, which is a misfortune. Those we have ourselves created injure our purchases, which is another misfortune. With reference to the first, we are powerless; but the second rests with ourselves. Let us, at least, get rid of one, since we cannot rid ourselves of both evils. Let us suppress our obstructives without requiring Stulta to do the same. Some day, no doubt, she will come to know her own interests better."

A second counselor, a practical, matter-of-fact man, guiltless of any acquaintance with principles, and brought up in the ways of his forefathers, replied: "Don't listen to that Utopian dreamer, that theorist, that innovator, that economist, that Stultomaniac. We shall all be undone if the stoppages of the road are not equalized, weighed, and balanced between Stulta and Puera. There would be greater difficulty in going than in coming, in exporting than in importing. We should find ourselves in the same condition of inferiority relatively to Stulta as Havre, Nantes, Bordeaux, Lisbon, London, Hamburg, and New Orleans are with relation to the towns situated at the sources of the Seine, the Loire, the Garonne, the Tagus, the Thames, the Elbe, and the Mississippi, for it is more difficult for a ship to ascend than to descend a river. (A Voice: Towns at the mouths of rivers prosper more than towns at their source.)

"This is impossible. (Same Voice: But it is so.) Well, if it be so, they have prospered contrary to rules." Reasoning so conclusive convinced the assembly, and the orator followed up his victory by talking largely of national independence, national honor, national dignity, national labor, inundation of products, tributes, murderous competition. In short, he carried the vote in favor of the maintenance of obstacles; and if you are at all curious on the subject, I can point out to you countries where you will see with your own eyes road makers and obstructives working together on the most friendly terms possible, under the orders of the same legislative assembly, and at the expense of the same taxpayers, the one set endeavoring to clear the road, and the other set doing their utmost to render it impassable.

The following passage resonates on the political stumbling block, mentioned by Bastiat above, for unilateral free trade:

The compelling economic case for unilateral free trade carries hardly any weight among people who really matter…

But the problem free traders face is not that their theory has dropped them into Wonderland, but that political pragmatism requires them to imagine themselves on the wrong side of the looking glass. There is no inconsistency or ambiguity in the economic case for free trade; but policy-oriented economists must deal with a world that does not understand or accept that case. Anyone who has tried to make sense of international trade negotiations eventually realizes that they can only be understood by realizing that they are a game scored according to mercantilist rules, in which an increase in exports—no matter how expensive to produce in terms of other opportunities foregone—is a victory, and an increase in imports—no matter how many resources it releases for other uses—is a defeat. The implicit mercantilist theory that underlies trade negotiations does not make sense on any level, indeed is inconsistent with simple adding-up constraints; but it nonetheless governs actual policy. The economist who wants to influence that policy, as opposed to merely jeering at its foolishness, must not forget that the economic theory underlying trade negotiations is nonsense—but he must also be willing to think as the negotiators think, accepting for the sake of argument their view of the world.

This was written by then international trade economist Paul Krugman in 1997 prior to his tergiversation of the free trade doctrine to become consumed by the forces of mercantilism whom he once condemned. (hat tip Professor Don Boudreaux) Given the temptations to power from "the economist who wants to influence that policy", Mr. Krugman reminds me of the transformation of Anakin Skywalker into Darth Vader

Estonian President Slams Paul Krugman

When apologists for the state don’t have developments going their way, they intuitively employ verbal sleight of hand as defense mechanism.

Given that Estonia has recently been recognized as the pro-austerity model of success, which I recently posted here, Keynesian high priest Paul Krugman quickly wrote to downplay on such progress. Mr. Krugman's comments drew a vitriolic rebuke from the Estonian president.

From the Huffington Post (hat tip Cato’s Dan Mitchell)

The president of Estonia chewed out Paul Krugman on Wednesday, using Twitter to call the Nobel Prize-winning economist "smug, overbearing & patronizing," in response to a short post on Estonia's economic recovery.

Krugman's 67-word entry, entitled "Estonian Rhapsody," questioned the merits of using Estonia as a "poster child for austerity defenders." He included a chart that, in his words, showed "significant but still incomplete recovery" after a deep economic slump.

President Toomas Hendrik Ilves responded to Krugman in a series of outraged tweets, taking offense to Krugman's tone and writing that Krugman didn't know what he was talking about.

"We're just dumb & silly East Europeans. Unenlightened. Someday we too will understand," he tweeted. "Guess a Nobel in trade means you can pontificate on fiscal matters & declare my country a "wasteland". Must be a Princeton vs Columbia thing."

Estonia, which in 2011 became the latest country to join the eurozone, has been heralded by some as an austerity success story. That year, it clocked a faster economic growth pace than any other country in the European Union, at 7.6 percent. Estonia is also the only EU member with a budget surplus, and had the lowest public debt in 2011 -- 6 percent of GDP. Fitch affirmed its A+ credit rating last week.

Politics becomes a religion when people resort to lies and misrepresentation to desperately defend ideas that has been proven to be based on faith and wishful thinking than from reality.

Paul Krugman Haunted by Debate with Ron Paul

Well, Paul Krugman seems to be haunted by his recent debate with Ron Paul.

Mr. Krugman writes,

A bit of meta on my “debate” with Ron Paul; I think it’s a perfect illustration of a point I’ve thought about a lot, the uselessness of face-to-face debates.

Think about it: you approach what is, in the end, a somewhat technical subject in a format in which no data can be presented, in which there’s no opportunity to check facts (everything Paul said about growth after World War II was wrong, but who will ever call him on it?). So people react based on their prejudices. If Ron Paul got on TV and said “Gah gah goo goo debasement! theft!” — which is a rough summary of what he actually did say — his supporters would say that he won the debate hands down; I don’t think my supporters are quite the same, but opinions may differ.

This has been Mr. Krugman’s second post on the debate [earlier post here], whereas Mr. Ron Paul has not said a word since.

Ron Paul, as Bob Wenzel rightly observed, has clearly gotten into Krugman's head.

Video: Ron Paul versus Paul Krugman

A terse modern day version of Hayek versus Keynes debate.

Congressman Ron Paul takes down Paul Krugman. The closing portion of the debate [12:44] on freedom and markets was noteworthy.

(hat tip Professor William Anderson)

Paul Krugman’s Positive Take on the Blogsphere

I have been saying that the information or digital age has been changing the way information flows or has been democratizing knowledge.

Writes Paul Krugman (Hat tip Bob Wenzel) [bold emphasis mine]

What the blogs have done, in a way, is open up that process. Twenty years ago it was possible and even normal to get research into circulation and have everyone talking about it without having gone through the refereeing process – but you had to be part of a certain circle, and basically had to have graduated from a prestigious department, to be part of that game. Now you can break in from anywhere; although there’s still at any given time a sort of magic circle that’s hard to get into, it’s less formal and less defined by where you sit or where you went to school.

Since there’s some kind of conservation principle here, the fact that it’s easier for people with less formal credentials to get heard means that people who have those credentials are less guaranteed of respectful treatment. So yes, we’ve seen some famous names run into firestorms of criticism — *justified* criticism – even as some “nobodies” become players. That’s a good thing! Famous economists have been saying foolish things forever; now they get called on it.

And this process has showed what things are really like. If some famous economists seem to be showing themselves intellectually naked, it’s not really a change in their wardrobe, it’s the fact that it’s easier than it used to be for little boys to get a word in.

As you can see, I think this is all positive. The econoblogosphere makes it a lot harder for economists to shout down other people by pulling rank — although some of them still try — but that’s a good thing.

Mr. Krugman doesn’t say it directly, but the econoblogsphere has been functioning as self-regulating free market of economic opinions or ideas and this is a development to cheer about.

Occupy Washington, the US Federal Reserve and the Princeton University

Investing savant Dr. Marc Faber says that demonstrators against Wall Street should instead occupy Washington and the US Federal Reserve.

The Business Intelligence Middle East quotes Dr. Faber (bold emphasis mine)

On the US Federal Reserve’s preference to support the banking and financial class through bubble policies:

We cannot blame Wall Street and well-to-do people for the mishap, for this ratio to have exploded on the upside. We have to blame essentially expansionary monetary policies that favor assets. So you have low consumer price inflation, you have no wage inflation."

In fact, the problem in America is that real wages, real compensation has been down since the 1970s. But at the same time, asset prices, equities, real estate and so forth have gone up dramatically, and that favors people who have these assets. And so the ratio expanded and you have now a record wealth inequality, and income inequality…

On Washington’s bribery of Americans in order to expand welfare state for the benefit of the political class and their cronies.

The problem with government is that the original intention of, especially a democracy, is very good.

Everybody has a say in how societies should be structured, but over time, it becomes very polarized and it moves into the hands of powerful business interests, and also interest groups like the military complex, or say the welfare recipients and so forth…

So you end up with kind of on the one hand a tyranny of the masses where you distribute all kinds of goodies to people. Like in America roughly 50% of the population gets a handout one way or the other from the government. So by continuing to support these people, you get their votes.

The protestors should focus on the root of the problem

Wall Street is a minority, anyone else would have done the same, they use the system but they didn't create the system. The system was created by the lobbyists and by Washington. So they [the protesters] should actually go to Washington and also occupy the Federal Reserve on the way

Professor William L. Anderson further suggests for an Occupy Princeton University movement (highlights mine)

That's right, I am calling for an immediate occupation of...Princeton University, and specifically, its economics department. There is no other place on earth that has given us more players and more enablers of the financial madness that has gripped this economy for many years.

Reason: Because of the notoriety of some of the academic alumnus towards interventionist and inflationist policies: Ben Bernanke, Alan Blinder, Alan Krueger and Paul Krugman

Continue reading Professor Anderson’s explanations here

Paul Krugman’s Rationalization of Record Gold Prices

Here is Paul Krugman's take on today's record gold prices (quote from the Business Insider) [bold emphasis mine]

The logic, if you think about it, is pretty intuitive: with lower interest rates, it makes more sense to hoard gold now and push its actual use further into the future, which means higher prices in the short run and the near future.

But suppose this is the right story, or at least a good part of the story, of gold prices. If so, just about everything you read about what gold prices mean is wrong.

For this is essentially a “real” story about gold, in which the price has risen because expected returns on other investments have fallen; it is not, repeat not, a story about inflation expectations. Not only are surging gold prices not a sign of severe inflation just around the corner, they’re actually the result of a persistently depressed economy stuck in a liquidity trap — an economy that basically faces the threat of Japanese-style deflation, not Weimar-style inflation. So people who bought gold because they believed that inflation was around the corner were right for the wrong reasons.

My comments

This is an example of a biased ex-post analysis wherein facts are fitted into a theory or model.

First of all, Mr. Krugman assumes a causal linkage between gold prices and interest rates without telling us why gold became the preferred choice of investors among the many possible ‘other investment’ alternatives.

Gold’s prices has just simply been assumed as fait accompli.

Second, it isn’t just gold that’s been rising but the precious metals group and most of the commodity sphere. His model has been silent on this.

The S&P GSCI Energy Index (GSCI), Dow Jones-UBS Agriculture sub index (DJAAG) and Dow Jones-UBS Industrial Metals (DJAIN) are all in an uptrend (yeah blame emerging markets!)

Third, Mr. Krugman does not explain why this relationship did not hold true in the 90s where interest rates had been in a secular decline along with the bear market of gold prices.

Neither does he explain how this model worked when gold prices soared along with ascendant interest rates during the stagflation decade of 1970-1980s

Lastly if Mr. Krugman’s analysis is right, then why hasn’t he predicted today’s record gold prices?

My Prayer to the Lord on Krugman’s Wish for More Destruction

[IMPORTANT UPDATE: The Krugman google+ quote below is an admitted forgery. Although Mr. Krugman could have said this in different ways. Forgery isn't justifiable.]

The Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman posted at the google+

People on twitter might be joking, but in all seriousness, we would see a bigger boost in spending and hence economic growth if the earthquake had done more damage

Dear Lord,

In reading the above, I became distraught when I realized that people of high stature would actually wish or even impliedly invoke harm, damage or loss on other people for the sake of statistics.

In case You should grant Mr. Krugman and his followers their wishes, I do pray that You would not include them in that specter of greater destruction.

That’s because if you did, they will be spending for repairs, hospitalization expenses, reconstruction and etc…, money which they would have spent for other useful and more desirable things than on contingents.

Although they could be helping out the economy as they claim this would, it would be better that they be left unscathed, so that they can keep on telling half truths which the world so badly needs.

I pray too that Mr. Krugman and his followers would not suffer from the losses of lives and injuries associated with the accompanying devastation.

Because if You allowed this to happen, I would suppose that Mr. Krugman and company will also suffer from the misery, trauma and tragedy of the losses of family members, relatives close friends, colleagues and or associates.

Also they might even endure the agony of medical recuperation and therapy if they have been wounded. And if this is so, they will have to consume their savings unless they are adequately covered by insurance. Again they would be diverting money to spending on emergency than on attaining more convenience during 'normal' times.

And under the period of rehabilitation they may not be able to spread their negative knowledge to their disciples and to the gullible.

And they may not be also paid by their respective employers if their treatment will be prolonged or if they become permanently handicapped.

As I understand, the economy is about interacting human beings, where losses of lives and physical impairment translates to the reduction of human capital. And losses of human life, I understand essentially reduces, and not adds to, real economic growth.

If You so decide to take away all our lives and leave only Mr. Krugman and his followers alive, there won't be much to spend on because there will hardly be anyone left to produce to serve the needs of these hallowed survivalists. And countless green pieces of paper won't do anything too.

Most importantly I pray that Mr. Krugman and his followers will be forgiven for their misanthropic desires and dogmatic superciliousness.

And that such forgiveness be extended to me for my aghast response over what seems for me as a demented opinion.

Thanks for listening,

Benson

Cartoon of the Day: The Krugman Elixir

Hat tip: Mises Blog and sourced from mugnaini.tumblr.com

More On The Krugman Inflation Spiel

In my earlier post where I argued that Paul Krugman appear to be conditioning his readers for a possible reversal in his ‘deflation’ stance, I forgot to put on some charts which Mr. Krugman has referred to.

I would like to reiterate, “Such shell game is happening NOW!”

Krugman says,

So we’re talking about a monetary base that rises 12 percent a month, or about 400 percent a year.

Does this mean 400 percent inflation? No, it means more — because people would find ways to avoid holding green pieces of paper, raising prices still further.

Let’s do away with the %. Here is the state of the adjusted Monetary Base...

…which apparently is in a VERTICAL spike! (chart from St. Louis Federal Reserve)

Here is the composition of the Fed’s balance sheets...

This from the Wall Street Journal Blog, (bold highlights mine)

Assets on the Fed’s balance sheet expanded to around $2.566 trillion in the latest week from $2.403 trillion at the end of 2010. Nearly all the additions this year have come from new Treasury purchases — some $164 billion in the past three months. The Fed announced earlier last year that it will purchase an additional $600 billion of Treasurys through June in addition to previously announced purchases with money reinvested from its MBS portfolio.

Though the overall size of the balance sheet is continuing to increase, the makeup is moving back toward the long-term trend. The MBS and agency debt holdings have steadily declined as loans are paid off or mature. The Fed still holds nearly $1 trillion in MBS, but now owns more Treasurys — over $1.28 trillion.

And here is the Wall Street Journal on what’s driving inflation expectations.... (bold highlights mine)

Inflation, once believed dead, is showing a pulse. While price increases are unlikely to become rampant, consumers are lifting their inflation expectations, and more businesses are marking up their selling prices to recoup input costs.

Signs of life for inflation come at a time when the Federal Reserve has to weigh the potential impacts from the Japan tragedy and Middle East unrest.

To be sure, Thursday’s data on the consumer price index showed inflation remains well within the Fed’s preferred target of about 2%. Total prices, pushed up by higher food and energy, increased 2.1% over the year ended in February, while core inflation — which ignores food and fuel — was up a milder 1.1%.

Even so, higher commodity costs are starting to influence the outlook.

As earlier pointed out,

True, food prices signify a minor component in the household expenditure pie for developed economies. But that doesn’t mean that rising oil, food and commodity prices won’t spillover to the rest of the economy. Eventually they will!

Regular readers of this blog know that we have been pounding the table on this pathology known as inflationism—since 2008

Such as this

Our point is simple; if authorities today see the continuing defenselessness of the present economic and market conditions against deflationary forces, ultimately the only way to reduce the monstrous debt levels would be to activate the nuclear option or the Zimbabwe model.

And as repeatedly argued, the Zimbabwe model doesn’t need a functioning credit system because it can bypass the commercial system and print away its liabilities by expanding government bureaucracy explicitly designed to attain such political goal.

Or this (2010) and this and this (stages of inflation-2009) or my $200 oil forecast (2009) and many more also here and here

False religion eventually get to be exposed. The Emperor has no clothes.

The Inflation Spiel From Paul Krugman

Keynesian high priest (and Nobel awardee) Paul Krugman appears to be conditioning the public of a possible turnaround in his outlook!

He writes,

The Fed could directly finance the government by buying debt, or it could launder the process by having banks buy debt and then sell that debt via open-market operations; either way, the government would in effect be financing itself through creation of base money. So?

Well, the first month’s financing would increase the monetary base by around 12 percent. And in my hypothesized normal environment, you’d expect the overall price level to rise (with some lag, but that’s not crucial) roughly in proportion to the increase in monetary base. And rising prices would, to a first approximation, raise the deficit in proportion.

So we’re talking about a monetary base that rises 12 percent a month, or about 400 percent a year.

Does this mean 400 percent inflation? No, it means more — because people would find ways to avoid holding green pieces of paper, raising prices still further.

I could go on, but you get the point: once we’re no longer in a liquidity trap, running large deficits without access to bond markets is a recipe for very high inflation, perhaps even hyperinflation. And no amount of talk about actual financial flows, about who buys what from whom, can make that point disappear: if you’re going to finance deficits by creating monetary base, someone has to be persuaded to hold the additional base.

At this point I have to say that I DON’T EXPECT THIS TO HAPPEN — America is a very long way from losing access to bond markets, and in any case we’re still in liquidity trap territory and likely to stay there for a while.

Krugman admits that the Fed can directly “finance the government by buying debt” and indirectly “launder the process by having banks buy debt” which can cause HIGH inflation.

But yet he engages in subtle sophism by saying this won’t happen for as long as the US has access to bond markets—”very long way from losing access to bond markets”.

Obviously losing access to bond markets isn’t the issue, if the Fed continues to buy US debts!

And that’s exactly what the Quantitative Easing (QE) programs are for. And QE represents no more than a shell game. In other words, such shell game is happening NOW!

Here is the statement of the US Federal Reserve announcing QE 2.0 last November (CNN Money)

To promote a stronger pace of economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at levels consistent with its mandate, the Committee decided today to expand its holdings of securities. The Committee will maintain its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its securities holdings. In addition, the Committee intends to purchase a further $600 billion of longer-term Treasury securities by the end of the second quarter of 2011, a pace of about $75 billion per month. The Committee will regularly review the pace of its securities purchases and the overall size of the asset-purchase program in light of incoming information and will adjust the program as needed to best foster maximum employment and price stability.

The point is as Krugman continues to talk of inflation he prepares the public for that dramatic announcement where he’d probably mimic his idol, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?”

This should represent another MAJOR failure of the macroeconomic paradigm.

Peter Schiff Takes Down Paul Krugman & Co.: They're In For A Rude Awakening

Peter Schiff debunks Paul Krugman's protectionist overtures. (hat tip: William Anderson)

The Delusion Of The Mercantilist Miracle

Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman in his blog wrote, (hat tip: William Anderson)

“As I’ve written many times in various contexts since the crisis began, being in a liquidity trap reverses many of the usual rules of economic policy. Virtue becomes vice: attempts to save more actually make us poorer, in both the short and the long run. Prudence becomes folly: a stern determination to balance budgets and avoid any risk of inflation is the road to disaster. Mercantilism works: countries that subsidize exports and restrict imports actually do gain at their trading partners’ expense. For the moment — or more likely for the next several years — we’re living in a world in which none of what you learned in Econ 101 applies." (bold emphasis mine)

Well the Pope of Keynesianism believes [and prescribes policies] that by slapping protectionist measures on China, US jobs will return and the US economy will boom.

Even if such absurdity is deemed as a calculated gambit to 'coerce' China to reform her policies, Mr. Krugman apparently is playing the game of chicken or brinkmanship.

Mr. Krugman and his ilk forgets that once these fulminations become real, where actions will lead to counteractions, then protectionism is likely to spread outside the US-China sphere.

Now one can't help but notice that the US is presently heavily dependent on oil imports to sustain her economy.

chart from the Heritage Foundation

According to wikipedia.org, ``American dependence on oil imports grew from 24% in 1970 to 65% by the end of 2005. At the current rate of unchecked import growth, the US would be 70% to 75% reliant on foreign oil by the middle of the next decade. Transportation has the highest consumption rates, accounting for approximately 68.9% of the oil used in the United States in 2006, and 55% of oil use worldwide as documented in the Hirsch report." (bold highlight mine)

This only means that the unforeseen consequences of a fallout from protectionism is so massive that it would defeat whatever "noble" goals (but ludicrous), it is set to accomplish. This also implies that the US is terribly dependent on global trade as to even harbor the notion of "protectionism" (which would be tantamount to national suicide)

One may argue that the US may resort to invading nations that refuses to provide her with oil, but that in essence would validate Frederic Bastiat who once said that "When goods don't cross borders, armies will" .

Since protectionism translates to a closing of borders to trade, finance, investments and possibly even migration, this also means the imposition of capital controls too.

Hence the US is likely to default on her debts while engaging massive inflation to fund her war interests.

Does this lead to anywhere to near an economic boom? Hardly. Instead, it points to a reverse: a global depression plagued by war, needless deaths and poverty, courtesy of deceitful mercantilists fanatics.

So we agree with Stephen Roach, who just harshly rebuked Mr. Krugman, as quoted in Bloomberg,

“We should take out the baseball bat on Paul Krugman -- I mean I think that the advice is completely wrong,” Roach said in an Bloomberg Television interview in Beijing when asked about Krugman’s call, characterized as akin to taking a baseball bat to China. “We’re lashing out at China rather than tending to our own business,” which is raising U.S. savings, Roach said."

Or perhaps, by taking on such seemingly reckless policy prescriptions, could Mr. Krugman be unwittingly be helping advance Osama Bin Ladin's cause of bankrupting America?

Example Of Propaganda Masquerading As Analysis

This is another example of how economic theories are mangled in order to justify partisan political actions (I call it propaganda masquerading as analysis).

Here is Nobel winner Paul Krugman on Unemployment Benefits (hat tip: Mark Perry)

"From Paul Krugman's recent NY Times column:

``Today, Democrats and Republicans live in different universes, both intellectually and morally. Take the question of helping the unemployed in the middle of a deep slump. What Democrats believe is what textbook economics says: that when the economy is deeply depressed, extending unemployment benefits not only helps those in need, it also reduces unemployment.

``But that’s not how Republicans see it. Here’s what Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, had to say when defending Mr. Bunning’s position: unemployment relief “doesn’t create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.”

``In Mr. Kyl’s view, then, what we really need to worry about right now — with more than five unemployed workers for every job opening, and long-term unemployment at its highest level since the Great Depression — is whether we’re reducing the incentive of the unemployed to find jobs. To me, that’s a bizarre point of view — but then, I don’t live in Mr. Kyl’s universe. And the difference between the two universes isn’t just intellectual, it’s also moral.

From Paul Krugman's textbook (page 210):

``Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of "Eurosclerosis," the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries."

My comment: Like lawyers, many economists can "play" two opposing sides of the argument, depending on the "interests" of the "client", irregardless of the validity of the concept.

Mainstream Denials And The Greenshoots of Inflation

``We're going to have a currency crisis, probably this fall or the fall of 2010. It's been building up for a long time. We've had a huge rally in the dollar, and artificial rally in the dollar, so it's time for a currency crisis.”-Jim Rogers Bloomberg

Nobel Laureate Dr. Paul Krugman recently wrote in his widely read column at the New York Times to dismiss of the risks of inflation. He suggested that what has been happening in the marketplace isn’t about inflation, but an attempt by the opposition to dislodge present policies,

``But it’s hard to escape the sense that the current inflation fear-mongering is partly political, coming largely from economists who had no problem with deficits caused by tax cuts but suddenly became fiscal scolds when the government started spending money to rescue the economy. And their goal seems to be to bully the Obama administration into abandoning those rescue efforts.” (bold emphasis mine)

Dr. Krugman’s basis for debunking inflation has been 1) most recent data on consumer index and importantly 2) banks haven’t been lending enough since bank reserves remain bloated. Apparently, the popular economist believes that what happens today should be construed as tomorrow’s events.

Yet, Dr. Krugman’s prescription is for the Obama administration to continue with its inflationary path. In other words, the mainstream’s ideology has been epitomized by Dr. Krugman.

And this is the same ideology, which for us has been heightening the risks of intractable inflation, despite the supposed “omniscience” of the Nobel awardee.

As we argued last week in $200 Per Barrel Oil, Here We Come!, inflationary policies will largely cause a spike in oil prices in combination with oil’s structural fundamental imbalances.

Unfortunately Dr. Krugman, who believes in the almighty power of governments as solution to everything, has a skewed understanding of inflation; inflation has been always a political process. Since government actions, such as spending, lending, guaranteeing, protecting, subsidizing etc…, are not determined by the marketplace or by fundamental economic laws of demand and supply, as they are arbitrarily decided upon by policymakers and regulators, then such actions are reckoned as political in nature. Hence, inflation fear mongering isn’t political, Dr. Krugman gets it the other way around, but the use of mandated coercive powers to implement redistributive process is.

Monetary Forces Strengthens Decoupling

Mainstream experts, like Dr. Krugman, have been lost with the sudden rise of stock markets and in the commodity markets as the actions marketplace appears to have been detached from the developments in the real economy. This is because Dr. Krugman has been predicting of a deflationary depression and even wrote a book about it. Lately, Dr. Krugman conceded that “We have averted utter catastrophe.”

As we mentioned in our mid week article, see Monetary Forces Appear To Be Gaining An Upper Hand, these experts have been “rationalizing” on market actions to either affirm or dispute market accounts depending on their inherent biases.

For the bulls, the recent market activities account for as some form of triumph by government policy efforts to resuscitate the global economy or the much ballyhooed “greenshoots”.

For the bears, the widening disconnect with the real economy seems like a surefire indicator of a maturing bear market rally which will ultimately end in tears.

For us, while some signs of economic recovery have indeed been taking place in response to the “shock” (or our Posttraumatic Stress Disorder-PTSD) arising from the near meltdown of the US banking system, due to an institutional bank run which took place late last year, recent developments or market outperformance have been symptomatic of monetary forces asserting dominance over both the marketplace and the economic sphere.

We also beg to differ from the mainstream opinion that the present rising markets is about expanding global risk appetite.

Instead, we see the risk profile as shifting substantially to weigh against US markets more than Emerging Markets or Asia.

Aside from the Bond markets or stock markets (see Figure 4), we note that from the economic growth perspective to policy trajectories (Asia has been adopting policies directed at integration amidst this crisis) to prospective business conditions signs have evinced of “decoupling”.

Figure 4: Bespoke Invest: BRIC outperforms S&P 500

And we are entirely agree with the observation that the ongoing dynamics has been a “shift from the Core to the Periphery”, as analyst Doug Noland in his Credit Bubble Bulletin predicts, ``A robust Core to Periphery Dynamic and the re-emergence of dollar vulnerability are a potent combination. U.S. markets to this point remain sanguine with the prospect of an expanding Federal Reserve balance sheet rectifying any spike in interest rates. But currency markets are no doubt increasingly fixated on our propensity to monetize our massive debt. At some point, increasingly unwieldy flows out of our currency may force the Fed’s hand. The scenario where the Fed is forced to choose between loose monetary policy and currency crisis could be a potential big negative surprise for U.S. markets.” (bold highlight mine)

In short, since the survival of the present paper money system is mainly a measure of confidence or trust in the system, policies that work to undermine these framework risks the extreme ends of either a hyperinflation or deflation.

Another, mainstream deflationists continue to struggle with the fallacies of lack of aggregate demand, US centric global growth model, global surplus capacity, imbalances of current accounts and ‘velocity of money’ all of which are based on the assumption of the neutrality of money.

Debunking Mainstream Fallacies

Inflation doesn’t need demand. This mistakenly assumes that normalization of the credit process depends on the private sector as the sole pathway for inflation.

In the recent Zimbabwe or the 1920s Weimar Germany experience, their governments simply increased liabilities on an exponential scale and simultaneously spent them on the economy and the result was a hyperinflationary depression! No consumer spending required, it had all been government spending!

Today, governments not only in the US but all around the world have been frontloading fiscal expenditures or inflating altogether. Hence the inflationary transmission scheme can’t be compared to Japan in the 90s since this has been a global effort more than a stand alone stint!!!

In addition, as noted above, financing today has apparently taken place outside of the banking system, particularly on the capital markets. Example, financing for junk bonds in Europe has reportedly been brought back to life (Wall Street Journal)!

Thus, global government ‘stimulus’ spending, growth of financing obtained from global capital markets and a semblance of normalization of the banking system risks unleashing outsized or “substantial” inflation, if not the extreme-hyperinflation!

Remember Asia and the emerging markets have the capacity to undertake massive credit expansion since they are both systemically underleveraged relative to OECD economies and have a functional banking system largely unscathed by the recent crisis [see Will Deglobalization Lead To Decoupling?]. Moreover present government policies have likewise been geared towards attaining such goals.

The next problem would be if governments would be able to withdraw or reverse present policies at the right time if benign inflation turns savage!

Moreover, the collapse in global trade late last year was mainly read by the mainstream as a structural loss of the US driven global growth engine. Thereby, without the US consumers it is held, the world was bereft of a buyer for their products. This has been proven to be incorrect.

Apparently, the emergence of barter trades (post October collapse) suggested to us that demand wasn’t impaired but that the problem was in the gridlock in the US banking system which hampered trade financing [see What Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Have To Do With Today’s Financial Crisis].

And as the world has recovered from this shock, global trades have begun to show indications of significant improvements, and this partly includes the US.

So while it is true that we won’t see volume of trades in the magnitude of the peak of the bubble days and that it would take sometime for the world to adjust to new patterns, recent activities have only confirmed our suspicion that the world hasn’t been dependent solely on the US, as markets everywhere have depicted signs of “decoupling” or divergences.

And if the world isn’t US centric then the rest of the other fallacies which relies on the US as the center of power crumbles along with it, namely surplus capacity, velocity of money or current account imbalances.

Furthermore, since some public personalities such as Pimco’s Bill Gross or former US comptroller General David Walker have raised the likely prospects that the US could lose its AAA credit ratings based on present directions of government policies, some analysts have rushed into the defense stating that the US position is privileged since debt has been underwritten from its own currency and that the US has a larger taxing capacity.

We again beg to differ; if the US continues to debase its currency then it has effectively been implicitly repudiating its debt.

As Henry Hazlitt wrote in From Bretton Woods to Inflation, ``Devaluation is the modern euphemism for debasement of the coinage. It always means repudiation. It means that the promise to pay a certain definite weight of gold has been broken, and that the devaluing government, for its bonds or currency notes, will pay a smaller weight of gold.” Hence, the US risks jeopardizing on its hegemon as the world’s currency reserve standard as it breaks its promises to its creditors.

Money Is Not Neutral

We also agree when experts tell us that the US will endure from significantly higher taxes in order to finance government redistribution programs when nearly two-thirds of the population is close to being bankrupt and that the remaining one third would suffer from a stifling burden of new taxes.

All these imply that the US won’t see any vigorous recovery soon and probably could experience intermittent bouts of economic recessions or weaknesses.

Yet this is also exactly why we should continue to expect accelerated inflation. The mainstream represented by Dr. Krugman, whom has been influential to the present administration, encourages its government to adopt a Dr. Gono “Zimbabwe solution” of money printing away from its miseries. This is because mainstream ideology thinks of money as neutral.

According to Ludwig von Mises in The Non-Neutrality of Money, ``The reasoning of modern marginal utility economics begins from the assumption of a state of pure barter. The mechanism of exchanging commodities and of market transactions is considered on the supposition that direct exchange alone prevails. The economists depict a purely hypothetical entity, a market without indirect exchange, without a medium of exchange, without money. There is no doubt that this method is the only possible one, that the elimination of money is necessary and that we cannot do without this concept of a market with direct exchange only. But we have to realize that it is a hypothetical concept which has no counterpart in reality. The actual market is necessarily a market of indirect exchange and money transactions.”

``From this assumption of a market without money, the fallacious idea of neutral money is derived. The economists were so fond of the tool which this hypothetical concept provided that they overestimated the extent of its applicability. They began to believe that all problems of catallactics could be analyzed by means of this fictitious concept. In accordance with this view, they considered that the main work of economic analysis was the study of direct exchange. After that all that was left was to introduce the monetary terms into the formulas obtained. But this was, in their eyes, a work of only secondary importance, because, as they were convinced, the introduction of monetary terms did not affect the substantial operation of the mechanism they had described. The functioning of the market mechanism as demonstrated by the concept of pure barter was not affected by monetary factors.”

In other words, mainstream economics have analyzed mainly from the context of pure barter trades, or if money is taken into account, they consider its function as medium of exchange only.

This view disregards or dismisses the other function of money as a store of value. Hence, the proclivity by the mainstream, like Dr. Krugman, to suggest of money printing as certified way to juice up an economy.

However for us, money isn’t neutral. It impacts prices relatively, and importantly functions as a store of value (backed by real savings) that has psychological underpinning based on expectations which is being transmitted on real time to the marketplace by virtue of price signal dynamics.

As Henry Hazlitt wrote in What You Should Know About Inflation, ``the value of money varies for basically the same reasons as the value of any commodity. Just as the value of a bushel of wheat depends not only on the total present supply of wheat but on the expected future supply and on the quality of the wheat, so the value of a dollar depends on a similar variety of considerations. The value of money, like the value of goods, is not determined by merely mechanical or physical relationships, but primarily by psychological factors which may often be complicated.”

Surging Food Prices As The Proverbial “Nail In The Coffin”

Well as the mainstream remains firmly in denial, the unfolding price surges continue across stock markets and the commodities sphere.

We will just wait until these significantly percolate into food prices from which should serve as the final “nail in the coffin” see figure 5.

Figure 5: Economist: Food Prices Creeping Up!

In addition to the creeping food prices above, last week saw White Sugar rose to a 3 year high in London and soybeans notched its third weekly gain.

In other words, the broadening of gains seen in commodity prices has now filtered into food. This reinforces our view that monetary forces are becoming “sticky” and that the price inflation has been accelerating.

Since food prices are even more politically sensitive than oil or energy, rising prices will consequently mean a global public outcry that risks political destabilization in some parts of the world. Again this initially will be blamed on “speculators” than on governments, until inflation gets really out of whack.

We expect the 2007 episode to dwarf and function as a prologue to the forthcoming food crisis that could be expected to erupt in several parts of the world as discussed in Four Reasons Why ‘Fear’ In Gold Prices Is A Fallacy.

Finally, the growing incidence of public discontent on high food prices will eventually lead the mainstream ideologues and deflationists to capitulate.

But that would be a great time to talk about deflation.