Sheepskins Should Stay On Foreskins (Galbraith)

In this case, on Galbraith father's foreskin.  We would have been spared this intellectually-bankrupt and fallacious bit of spooge:

The Simpson-Bowles Commission, just established by the president, will no doubt deliver an attack on Social Security and Medicare dressed up in the sanctimonious rhetoric of deficit reduction.

....

But what would be the economic consequences if they did? The answer is that a big deficit-reduction program would destroy the economy, or what remains of it, two years into the Great Crisis.

Now that is Grade "A" hyperbole.  Let's examine it and see if there's any reasonable basis behind the claim.

To put things crudely, there are two ways to get the increase in total spending that we call "economic growth." One way is for government to spend. The other is for banks to lend. Leaving aside short-term adjustments like increased net exports or financial innovation, that's basically all there is. Governments and banks are the two entities with the power to create something from nothing. If total spending power is to grow, one or the other of these two great financial motors--public deficits or private loans--has to be in action.

Well, no.

There is only one way to get an increase in total spending that is sustainable: you must increase net production of "stuff", whether that is goods or services.

Wealth is not debt.  It is production.  It can only be mined, manufactured or grown. The only free lunch that is available is the power of the Sun, and that's only 'free" because we are too puny to measure in astrophysical time scales (if we weren't we'd realize that even the Sun's energy is in fact neither free or inexhaustible!)

With government, the risk of nonpayment does not exist. Government spends money (and pays interest) simply by typing numbers into a computer. Unlike private debtors, government does not need to have cash on hand.

.....

But no government can ever be forced to default on debts in a currency it controls. Public defaults happen only when governments don't control the currency in which they owe debts--as Argentina owed dollars or as Greece now (it hasn't defaulted yet) owes euros. But for true sovereigns, bankruptcy is an irrelevant concept.

That's the biggest load of bilge I've read in years.

While it is technically true that a government that has control of its own currency and print as much as it wants, it is not true that printing that currency with wild abandon is cost-free, and the more inter-connected one's economy is with other sovereigns that also have control of their currency the more dangerous unbridled printing is.

Weimar Germany had control of their own currency, and we all saw what happened to them.

Nor is public debt a burden on future generations. It does not have to be repaid, and in practice it will never be repaid.

This is true but also intentionally misleading.

The issue is not whether the debt will be paid off - it is that the interest payments are not under the issuing nation's control.  Demanded rates are a function of perceived ability to tax from the citizens the revenue necessary to cover that interest coupon.

Due to inefficiency in the economy (again, back to thermodynamics principles - no transfer of anything is ever 100% efficient) the money "printed" will fail to be entirely transmitted to the citizens in a form and fashion that can be taxed.  Indeed, they must spend some of it in order to survive.  This leads less than all of it available to be taxed away to cover those interest payments.

Nor is that interest a solvency threat. A recent projection from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, based on Congressional Budget Office assumptions, has public-debt interest payments rising to 15 percent of GDP by 2050, with total debt to GDP at 300 percent. But that can't happen. If the interest were paid to people who then spent it on goods and services and job creation, it would be just like other public spending.

Galbraith assumes that the interest is owed to US Citizens.  It is, to a large degree, not.  Those interest payments drain the economic vitality and future of the nation to foreign nations, as a vampire drains its victims blood.

So the fact that we're buying a lot of goods from China simply means we have to be more imaginative, and bolder, if we want to create all the jobs we need.

Really?  How does one compete with a wage of $1/day (in yuan, of course)?  Why by destroying one's standard of living, that's how.  This in turn destroys the tax base and we're right back where we started - without the ability to pay interest except by destruction of the currency, which in turn forces the cost of imports higher.

That in turn ruins the citizen's discretionary purchasing power as the most-sensitive import to currency depredation is petroleum, which we (due to our own idiocy over the course of more than 30 years) are effectively forced to purchase from foreign interests. 

But petroleum is in literally everything.  It is not only in things that are obvious (e.g. gasoline and fuel oil) but is an essential component of literally everything we buy.  Our modern food production system is dependent on petroleum for planting, fertilization, irrigation, harvest, processing and transportation.  Every item in your home or office that contains plastic or rubber contains petroleum, from the wrapper for your meat at the grocery store to your computer monitor, television set, the shingles on your roof and the tires on your car (not to mention its interior!)

But right now, we don't have functional big banks. We have a cartel run by an incompetent plutocracy, with its long fingers deep in the pockets of the state. For functional credit to return, we'll have to reduce the unpayable private debts now outstanding, to restore private incomes (meaning: create jobs) and collateral (meaning: home values), and we'll have to restructure the big banks.

You can't restore that which wasn't there.

Home values were false - fraudulently so.  They were pumped by charlatans pushing cheap credit and bogus appraisals.  The utility value of a home is to give you a place to hang your hat, take a dump and stick your bed where you won't be eaten by mosquitoes while you sleep.  This value is, and should be, able to be purchased for an average family for the price of somewhat near or less than one year's family wage, free and clear, without ongoing tax encumbrance.  Consider this: What did the settlers of this nation have to pay for their house?  On the prairie they were "raised" by the local community in a day or two, then finished by the family over time.  Were there 250 man-days that went into raising such a house?  Nope.  Yet that's the definition of one year's family income, right?

Over time we have thought of homes as financial assets, but they're not.  They're shelter.  They perform an essential function and as such allowing the nation's banks and other financial wonks, like Galbraith, to get their teeth into them has been incredibly lucrative - for the wonks.  For the rest of the nation it has spelled ruin every time it has occurred - 1873 (and before), 1929, and now in 2007.  In each case "real property" became the object of monstrous speculative froth unrelated to the utility value of the asset, and in each case economic malaise inevitably followed.

We need to break them up, shrink the financial sector overall, expose and prosecute frauds, and create incentives for profitable lending in energy conservation, infrastructure and other sectors.

That indeed is necessary.  But doing so will inevitably cause the speculative froth to come out in all of these asset classes.  Homes will contract to no more than 3x incomes on average, and likely lower.  If we contract homes to utility value they'll shrink in price to between 1x and 2x incomes, and property taxes will disappear. 

This, of course, is anathema to federal, state and local governments, not to mention the very institutions that were responsible for the speculative froth and fraud.  It is therefore perhaps a bit disingenuous to call for that which you know must happen while at the same time stating that we must restore bubble values to certain asset classes, for both cannot happen at the same time.

Either way, until we have effective financial reform, public budget deficits are the only way toward economic growth.

Deficit spending is not economic growth.  If I lose my job and use my credit card to sustain my lifestyle, I have not experienced "economic growth."  Quite to the contrary, should I represent to anyone - including myself - that my economic situation is stable or improving through such a display of abject stupidity all I have done is perpetrate a fraud upon those who I communicate such a claim to.

The sort of vacuous nonsense that Galbraith displays is why we're in this mess.  For the good of our nation this sort of stupidity must be banished in favor of embracing the truth: we have not lived in a nation of economic progress based on innovation and production for three decades, and we cannot return to a stable economic condition until the speculative froth - and the debt it engendered - is removed from our financial and economic system.