Cafe Hayek: I [Heart] America's Trade Deficit!

« Nothing Unbalanced About So-called "Trade Deficits" | Main | McCloskey on capitalism and the virtues» Russell Roberts

March 30, 2008

I [Heart] America's Trade Deficit!

Don Boudreaux

In his brilliant book, The Myth of the Rational Voter, my colleague (and EconLog's) Bryan Caplan identifies the "anti-foreign bias" as a major impediment to economic enlightenment. That bias is real and ubiquitous -- see, for example, this recent essay by Peter Morici at Forbes.com.

I sent the following letter in response to Mr. Morici's essay:

Peter Morici unloads a riotous barrage of accusations against free trade: Free trade caused, among other misfortunes, the collapse of the market for adjustable-rate mortgages, excessively high CEO compensation, inflationary monetary policy, and Uncle Sam's inexcusable bailout of Bear Stearns ("It's Time To Cut The Trade Deficit," March 26). Mr. Morici, however, doesn't explain how allowing consumers to take advantage of bargains from abroad caused these calamities. He simply assumes it to be self-evident that America's growing trade deficit proves that free trade triggers countless system-wide maladies.

Alas, Mr. Morici doesn't know what he's talking about. America's trade deficit represents capital flowing into the U.S. True, some of this inflow finances Uncle Sam's Eliot-Spitzer-party-like spending. But that spending is caused by reckless politicians, not consumers. Nearly all the rest of the trade deficit represents positive investments in America - investments that not only signal continued investor confidence in the U.S. economy but, more importantly, investments that finance R&D, product development, worker training, new firms, factory modernization, and other activities that promote economic growth. Does Mr. Morici really think that such investments harm Americans?

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Posted by Don Boudreaux in Balance of Payments, Myths and Fallacies, Trade | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200e5518405968833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I [Heart] America's Trade Deficit!:

Comments

This guy Morici is a real prize. He is actually on the faculty of the University of Maryland, I can't believe any school worth its salt would give a position someone so dead wrong on this issue.

Posted by: MikeB | Mar 30, 2008 12:10:26 PM

You know what's really scary?

"former Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission during the Clinton administration."

Eeek!

Posted by: Tim Worstall | Mar 30, 2008 1:28:14 PM

Economic flat-worlders.

I had to stop watching Lou Dobbs when I heard him calling for the re-implementation of the "Corn Laws".

I don't think these "thinkers" realize how silly their arguments are. Or, that they've been attempted--to sad effect--before. I had an old guy, one day, describe this as the goose effect. "Every time they open their eyes, it's a brand new day."

Gooses. Geeses. They make a lot of noise, don't they?

Posted by: OregonGuy | Mar 30, 2008 2:56:29 PM

MikeB, I know how you feel. I react the same way when Boudreaux starts talking about immigration.

Posted by: Non | Mar 30, 2008 3:29:20 PM

Morici = Muirdiot? Possible? I think so.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 30, 2008 4:11:45 PM

Why, yes, Freedomlover, Morici is a more readable but similarly incoherent Muirdiot. The bow-tie was a nice touch. I wonder if he realizes how much it makes him look like a "Wall Street rascal". Clearly, the tenure needs to be abandoned.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 30, 2008 6:45:18 PM

This Maryland grad is quite embarrassed. We've come down a couple of notches since the loss of Julian Simon.

Posted by: M. Hodak | Mar 30, 2008 8:36:40 PM

Lou Dobbs is an economic idiot, but at least he wasn't the Chief Economist of the U.S. International Trade Commission. I'm in agreement with Tim Worstall.

That a person with that background could be as foolish about basic economic ideas is mind-boggling. I may not be able to sleep tonight.

Posted by: James Hanley | Mar 30, 2008 10:11:04 PM

Methinks - credentials mean nothing to me. If a person wants to convince me of something they better be able to lay out all the facts on the table and construct a scientific argument that's 100% airtight. Credentials are for idol worshipers and getting hired.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 31, 2008 12:33:24 AM

The article is crap, the foreign investment obviously doesn't harm america. However, I still don't agree with Don's explanation:

America's trade deficit represents capital flowing into the U.S.

A man who is getting heavily indebted by buying a new car, new home, plasma TV, getting drunk every night, enjoying free time - is running a trade deficit. But: nobody would argue, that
- it is sustainable
- it represents an investment

The fallacy here is that inflow of credit doesn't equal investment. That might be mostly true if the 'deficit' was financed mainly by private individuals, even though they could make mistakes as well. However, huge amount of the trade deficit is financed by foreign central banks or state companies. I don't think you can claim that these people have incentives to put money into sound investments. Quite the opposite. Financing a drug addict is their official agenda.

Posted by: andy | Mar 31, 2008 6:47:20 AM

Economic flat-worlders.
I had to stop watching Lou Dobbs when I heard him calling for the re-implementation of the "Corn Laws".

I don't think these "thinkers" realize how silly their arguments are. Or, that they've been attempted--to sad effect--before. I had an old guy, one day, describe this as the goose effect. "Every time they open their eyes, it's a brand new day."

Gooses. Geeses. They make a lot of noise, don't they?

Posted by: OregonGuy | Mar 30, 2008 2:56:29 PM

You're the one that just doesn't "get it" and is in denial, OregonGuy. Everyone knows that we trade with one another (outside our political boundaries) at our own peril: we trade to make ourselves worse off than we were before. Sheez, you would think that you free-market types could grasp this truism having been told so often.

[/sarcasm]

Posted by: LowcountryJoe | Mar 31, 2008 7:13:55 AM

A man who is getting heavily indebted by buying a new car, new home, plasma TV, getting drunk every night, enjoying free time - is running a trade deficit.

Posted by: andy

Technically, that's a budget deficit. The trade deficit is different.

Posted by: mnm | Mar 31, 2008 7:59:25 AM

Freedomlover: "If a person wants to convince me of something they better be able to lay out all the facts on the table."

Morici: "...productivity gains were hogged by executives at Wall Street banks..."

Morici: "China is perhaps the biggest renegade in the mugging of the American middle class. The U.S. has slashed tariffs on Chinese products from auto parts to TVs, while China maintains much higher tariffs..."

So, Freedomlover, are you saying that suddenly aggressive assertion is not an "acceptable" argument and the Chinese subsidizing our consumption is NOT bad? What's this upside down world you live in? Didn't you notice Morici's cool bow-tie?

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 31, 2008 8:21:20 AM

mnm - no, it's both - budget AND trade deficit. If you get financing through equity and not debt, that would be trade deficit only. However, I doubt there is any fundamental difference - it cannot be called 'investment' in either case and it is not sustainable in either case.

If the US government runs a budget deficit and sells the bonds to foreigners, it is both budget deficit and trade deficit. And it is definitely not investment, unless you call destroying infrastructure in Iraq an 'investment'.

Posted by: andy | Mar 31, 2008 8:40:14 AM

Posted by: andy | Mar 31, 2008 8:41:06 AM

Technically, that's a budget deficit. The trade deficit is different.

No it's not. It's a trade deficit. A budget deficit would be if the man's government ran spent more than it took in. The man in his example is the country, not the government.

Even still, budget deficits cause trade deficits. Is Don B saying that budget deficits don't matter since they are offset by trade deficits? Yay for the Republicans' deficit spending! We don't care because the trade deficit will make up for it!

Posted by: brian | Mar 31, 2008 8:42:16 AM

That was an excellent summary of what has gone wrong with financial sector and a great explanation of how it's related to our trade deficit.

"You have to love Ben Bernanke's free trade capitalism. If you are an autoworker put out of work by Korean imports, he, as a good economist, tells you to go to school and find other work. If you are a New York banker caught paying yourself too much and run short of foreign investors to fleece, Ben will make you a loan and keep rolling until the bank finds a new game. "

BINGO!!!

It's claimed, " Mr. Morici, however, doesn't explain how allowing consumers to take advantage of bargains from abroad caused these calamities. "

No, actually he spelled it out very clearly. But a counter of his points were only attempted by taking the position that we need to just look at all the Capital inflowing to our country from our trade deficit..WHAT? Our economy is in a state of collapse only forestalled by a government bailout. The house is on fire and your wanting to show the neighbors all the nice new furniture you've bought?

"Alas, Mr. Morici doesn't know what he's talking about. America's trade deficit represents capital flowing into the U.S. True, some of this inflow finances Uncle Sam's Eliot-Spitzer-party-like spending. But that spending is caused by reckless politicians, not consumers."

Actually the trade deficit looks more like us exporting debt then Capital flowing in as confidence in our markets is plummeting and our lenders are wondering what to do with these pieces of paper we've given them to back up our purchase.

Blaming the problem on Eliot Spitzer and politicians while ignoring loans sharks, their securitized products and Wall Streets whines for socialism as their bubble burst is telling indeed. Wall Street.. what a dammed embarrassment to responsible children everywhere and to any thoughts of successful unregulated markets.

Likewise every post by the commenters here is inuendo or a pesonal attack. Absolutely nothing of substance to counter the points made by Morici. Not one significant rebuttal or explanation to sway my impression that we have a bankrupt economy run by a bankrupt philosophy..... oh but of course I must remember this doesn't represent a real free market. Only the cheap crap at Walmart is freemarket stuff. The debt and market collapse and government bailout that's Eliot Spitzers fault. LOL

Anyway thanks for pointing me to a great article I'll be sure to cite it whenever some one tries to tell me of the success of our "free trade" policies.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 31, 2008 9:02:15 AM

Bizzaro world: more consumer choice is equivalent to dictatorial corporatism. Congratulations on your understanding of an economy, Doctor Bellara.

Posted by: lowcountryjoe | Mar 31, 2008 9:23:27 AM

Here you go muirduck,

This is from a guy I know that was a political commissar in the old USSR, and is now currently living in the USA. He said it's the way they handled the problem back in the "bad old days".

Tax Rebate

This morning President Bush said each one of us would get a $600.00 tax
rebate. It was previously slated to be $800.00, but they dropped it to a
$600.00 tax rebate because of various budget problems.

Now, if we spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China, if
we spend it on computers, most of the money will go to
Korea or India. If we spend it on gasoline it will all go to the Arabs
.....and none of these scenarios will help the American economy.

We need to keep that money here in America .....so the only way to keep that
money here at home is to drink beer, gamble, or spend it on
prostitution. Currently it seems that these are the only businesses still
left in the U.S.

Whad-da ya think, muirduck, the guy has a pretty good head on his shoulders doncha think?

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 31, 2008 9:28:30 AM

brian: "Even still, budget deficits cause trade deficits."

How does a budget deficit "cause" a trade deficit? I don't see how the two are related.

A U.S. trade deficit arises when foreigners decide to use a portion of dollars gained in trade for some purpose other than purcahsing U.S. goods and services. Some, such as Toyota and Honda and Hyundai, use their dollars to build plants in the U.S. Some foreigners invest in U.S., real estate or equities of U.S. firms. Some, such as a few foreign governments, decide to purchase U.S. financial obligations, either private or government debt.

It is not the issuance of government debt that "causes" foreigners to not buy as much goods and services as the U.S. buys from them.

Posted by: John Dewey | Mar 31, 2008 9:51:39 AM

Muriego....loan sharks? American Dream Downpayment Act..... I think there were other red-lining laws in some states...

I don't get your logic. The whole problem was created by by voluntary action of people, whose money was taken (taxed, printed) by THE REGULATORS and this money was used as an incentive to lure people into these activities. The REGULATORS did support this behaviour.

Do you say that the problem could have been avoided if the regulators did regulate? THEY DID. They encouraged the behaviour. Acutally, the problem could have been much smaller, if the regulators DID NOT regulate - did not lower the interest rates but let the market set them, did not support these programs....

This seems to me the endless socialist debate - socialism could work, if the socialist did the 'right thing'. But they never do.

Posted by: andy | Mar 31, 2008 9:51:55 AM

The U.S.'s financial woes are due solely to two things: government spending outside of constitutional mandates and monetary inflation. And not just from direct effects.

Any monies that private sector crooks make off with are relative chicken feed.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 31, 2008 9:57:44 AM

Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HQdFtrNc7I

is one man's idea of where our country is going.

Whatcha think?

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 31, 2008 9:59:50 AM

Likewise every post by the commenters here is inuendo or a pesonal attack. Absolutely nothing of substance to counter the points made by Morici. - Muirdiot

That's right muirdiot, only you make substantive comments which can never ever be mistaken for stupidity or a personal attack. Muirpidities such as "derivatives are thievery" and "paper pushing Wall Street assholes, cocaine-addicted monkies, jerks" are just sheer genius analysis.

Mysteriously, though, you have no explanation for such muirpidities as:

Muirpid: But even the supposed independence of hedge funds is ridiculous when considering the many ties of their "products" (paper with varying claims of value) to the public treasury

what ties?

what products?

What are the claims and how do they vary?

what is the relationship of these mythical claims to treasury?

We are left with no explanation because idiocy, by definition, follows no logical path. It is no wonder, then, that Morici appeals to Muirdiot. Plus, the bow-tie....

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 31, 2008 10:06:34 AM

What's the best source of data for further analysis as to what makes up the US capital account surplus? I'm keen to know if we can quantify what type of capital it is made of...how much is consumer products versus plant&equipment, etc.

If anyone knows, please email me at joshnankivel@gmail.com

Thanks!

Posted by: Josh Nankivel | Mar 31, 2008 10:53:47 AM

Andy says to Muirgeo: "I don't get your logic. "

Welcome aboard Andy.

Posted by: Python | Mar 31, 2008 10:59:32 AM

ah, Python. I see you're off the Vicodin now.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 31, 2008 11:07:05 AM

Statist: "This happen because we don't have enough regulations."

Free-Marketers: "This happened because we have too many regulations."

Reality: People will always make mistakes and bad people will always try to take advantage of others. No system will change that.

I would argue that less regualtion is likely to give us the best results, but lets not pretend that there is some sort of utopia out there.

Posted by: Deryl G | Mar 31, 2008 11:07:06 AM

Josh Nankivel: "What's the best source of data for further analysis as to what makes up the US capital account surplus?"

You can view the U.S. Balance of Payments accounts from 1960-2007 here.

Posted by: John Dewey | Mar 31, 2008 11:12:06 AM

"Do you say that the problem could have been avoided if the regulators did regulate? THEY DID. They encouraged the behaviour." : Andy

Exactly. The purpose of regulation is to protect established interests at the expense of everyone else.

Posted by: Randy | Mar 31, 2008 11:15:56 AM

Deryl, I think most people here can point to a specific regulation and a specific unintended consequence. However, I don't think anyone here believes that complete deregulation will usher in a period of utopia. Rather, we accept that (as you put it): "People will always make mistakes and bad people will always try to take advantage of others. No system will change that." Since no system will change that, it seems silly to pay the price of regulation to pursue changing this reality.

Here's a link to an Op-Ed by Allan Meltzer about regulation. Seems timely for this thread.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 31, 2008 11:56:11 AM

Andy says to Muirgeo: "I don't get your logic. "

Vastly different premises.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 31, 2008 12:08:51 PM

Deryl G: You are right - what we would call a "utopia" is not what many people would think it is - in the economic argument sense, it is usually prefaced by a ceteris peribus assumption. I think this is often lost on those who oppose free market ideas when they are presented with an analogy or examples used to counter protectionist ideas.

"Free Marketeers" are generally for natural and organic markets. Maybe we should call ourselves "economic naturalists". We generally assume that there will be both "good" and "bad" in any given marketplace. We do not hide this point - failure does happen. But we realize there is nothing that can be done to buoy any given position without having, to borrow from Newton, an equal and opposite effect. The more you attempt to subvert natural economies, the greater the natural consequence will be.

Posted by: colson | Mar 31, 2008 12:12:13 PM

Methinks adn colson-

To be clear, I'm a free-market advocate.

I don't think I did a good job of making my point, which is that just because one can find examples where bad thinks happened under a particular system does not mean that the system is "bad".

People seem to be claiming that the current situation with mortgages illustrates that markets need to be regulated. However, to expect to never have a bad outcome is ludicrous. Those calling for more regulation seem to think that if there are ever enough regulations there will be no more of these type of failures. The truth is that no matter what, occasionally there will be unfortunate events.

When statist claim this crisis is proof that free-markets don't work, the libertarians rush to the defense of capitalism and declare that this market is not free. While I agree that the market is not completely free, the implication seems to be that if it were really free that the crisis would not occur. It may be true that this particular problem would not have happened, but some other negative event would have occured.

So lets admit there isn't a perfect system, that mistakes will happen, but that more regulations won't "fix things. At best, more regulations will likely only cause different "failures", not stop them.

Posted by: Deryl G | Mar 31, 2008 12:40:11 PM

"Maybe we should call ourselves "economic naturalists" : Colson

That's good.

Posted by: Randy | Mar 31, 2008 12:56:54 PM

While I agree that the market is not completely free, the implication seems to be that if it were really free that the crisis would not occur.

A problem with a regulatory system is that when inevitable problems occur, they are blamed by regulatory perfectionists on insufficient regulation.

This tends toward a virtual government takeover thus eventually putting all our fiscal eggs in one basket.

In a pluralistic, spontaneous market...a free market, problems tend to be more scattered, asystemic, and the costs more easily absorbed due to being relatively small scale. This also makes bad actors more easily identified and brought to accounts than under the alternative of a totalitarian market.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 31, 2008 1:24:45 PM

'Perfect' is not a useful descriptive in critiquing the market.
'Optimum' is more useful in this regard.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 31, 2008 1:27:54 PM

Deryl,

I thought you did a great job of making your point the first time. You had some pretty rock-solid logic.

"There is no perfect system" depends on how you define "perfection". I'm willing to trade the probability of suffering a negative outcome of my decisions for the freedom to make my own decisions. That's MY definition of perfection.

As for this particular crisis, I don't think it was a crisis until the Fed and Treasury stepped in. Before the government stepped in, it was a market adjusting to a new equilibrium. Home prices were coming down and the mortgages issued on them were also coming down in price to a new, lower equilibrium. As that happened, credit markets seized up - waiting to see what the new value of the collateral will be. The Fed and Treasury stepped in and prevented mortgages and real estate from trading at their new market prices. Knowing that the market has not reached equilibrium, lenders continued their freeze on lending and/or increased their credit spreads to reflect greater uncertainty about the real value of the underlying collateral. So, the Fed stepped up its lending, it extended to investment banks and hacked away at the interest rate - all in an effort to prevent trading and, thus, to prevent the market from reaching its new, lower equilibrium. As long as markets are out of equilibrium, it can be argued that they are in crisis. And the Fed and Treasury are busy preventing that equilibrium.

The current mortgage issues were not directly caused by regulation (although, in the Op-ed to which I posted a link, Meltzer believes that Basel II helped "fan the flames"). However, the Fed and Treasury are working overtime to make this a full-blown crisis.

I'm over-simplifying to some extent, and without intervention, the adjustment would have been deep and painful for the people who took the most risk. But the outcome would have been borne by those who took the risk and the credit markets would have returned to normal liquidity as market prices could be measured because there would have been transactions.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 31, 2008 1:37:58 PM

"Many of the greatest economic evils of our time are the fruits of risk, uncertainty, and ignorance. It is because particular individuals, fortunate in situation or in abilities, are able to take advantage of uncertainty and ignorance, and also because for the same reason big business is often a lottery, that great inequalities of wealth come about; and these same factors are also the cause of the unemployment of labour, or the disappointment of reasonable business expectations, and of the impairment of efficiency and production."

John Maynard Keynes

THE END OF LAISSEZ-FAIRE

Written in
(1926)

There will always be regulation. The key is to make it minimalist but effective. The biggest danger to effective regulation is allowing the regulated too near the process of making regulations and too near the process of enforcing them.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 31, 2008 1:41:01 PM

Your excellent cut and paste skills are noted, Muirpid. You get a gold star for the day.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 31, 2008 1:53:12 PM

Keynes (quote-a-palooza

Thanks the implementation of the ideas Keynes expressed in the quotation Muirpid posted above...

"The avoidance of taxes is the only intellectual pursuit that still carries any reward." - John Maynard Keynes

So, it's a damn good thing that...

"In the long run we are all dead." - John Maynard Keynes

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 31, 2008 2:05:03 PM

muirgeo quoting "THE END OF LAISSEZ-FAIRE"

Have you read the whole thing muirgeo? Or are you simply quote mining progressive websites?

Why didn't you quote this part?

"The time has already come when each country needs a considered national policy about what size of population, whether larger or smaller than at present or the same, is most expedient. And having settled this policy, we must take steps to carry it into operation. The time may arrive a little later when the community as a whole must pay attention to the innate quality as well as to the mere numbers of its future members."

Can you say eugenics?

Posted by: Marcus | Mar 31, 2008 2:17:45 PM

British nobility has long exuded a certain disdain for those who acquire wealth via commercial effort.

The descendants of the conquerers share this disdain with the left.

Muirgeo,

Quoting Keynes around here is superfluous.
Backing your perspective with Keynes only reveals the source of your faulty economic perception.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 31, 2008 3:01:06 PM

You might do better with Smith's observation that businessmen often gather to conspire against the public.

Of course you would seize upon that as validation of you prescription while we note that your prescription provides the means for business to effect their conspiracy.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 31, 2008 3:06:04 PM

"The biggest danger to effective regulation is allowing the regulated too near the process of making regulations and too near the process of enforcing them."
-- Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 31, 2008 1:41:01 PM

Muirgeo, if government is going to pick winning and losing businesses it seems rather naive to me to expect businesses to not want to influence the choice.

Posted by: Marcus | Mar 31, 2008 3:20:05 PM

The biggest danger to effective regulation is allowing the regulated too near the process of making regulations and too near the process of enforcing them.

There is also the fact that a business represents real people with a legitimate interest in any legislation that may affect them. Muirgeo wishes to take away from citizens the opportunity to petition legislators merely because those citizens happen to be in business.

Then too, large corporations have many employees that may also have a stake in such legislation. Politicians actively court these voters with promises of transfers from taxpayers to the industry they work in.

What muirgeo proposes merely drives such influence into the background and totally disenfranchises those who don't have the position to play golf with politicians.

Think INCENTIVES, dude. Remove the incentives.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 31, 2008 3:38:56 PM

That's well put Sam.

Posted by: Marcus | Mar 31, 2008 3:49:31 PM

Andy --

Thanks for saying that concisely. A trade deficit, by itself, is neither good nor bad. But, a trade deficit where we trade future obligations for crap, however, is bad.

Can anybody (preferably somebody with an econ degree) tell me what would happen to the trade deficit if the US were to eliminate the budget deficit? Does it matter if that elimination happens due to tax increases or cutting spending?

Posted by: Chris | Mar 31, 2008 3:59:28 PM

Methinks - trying to discuss this rationally with muirduck is like trying to deal with shit-slinging monkies in the jungle. It's an insane situation to begin with.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 31, 2008 4:10:07 PM

Think INCENTIVES, dude. Remove the incentives. - Sam

Another beautifully written post, Sam. And again, Muirpid won't understand a word of it.

The only reason that Muirpid quotes Keynes is because he's a prominent 20th century economist who uses words that Muirpid likes but the implications of which he doesn't understand. He also quotes Hayek and proceeds to attribute totally new meaning to Hayek's words - usually the polar opposite of what Hayek meant.

John Maynard Keynes - by Milton Friedman:

"....As of this writing (1988), the status and influence of the book [General Theory]has changed. It continues to have a major influence on economic thinking and economic policy, and will long continue to do so, but for very different reasons and in a very different way than it did initially. The catalyst for the change was the inflation and stagflation of the 1970s. As Robert Lucas wrote in 1981, "Proponents of a class of models which promised 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 percent unemployment to a society willing to tolerate annual inflation rates of 4 to 5 percent have some explaining to do after a decade such as we have gone through [i.e., the 1970s, when inflation rose to 16 percent and unemployment to 8 percent in the United States, and to 30 percent and 6 percent in the U.K. Inflation rose as high as 25 percent in Japan and 7 percent in Germany, though unemployment remained relatively low]. A forecast error of this magnitude and central importance to policy has consequences, as well it should."

The only part Muirpid will get is: "It [ General Theory]continues to have a major influence on economic thinking and economic policy, and will long continue to do so..."

Muirpid will make certain to attribute this quote to Friedman but will never provide context.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 31, 2008 4:17:06 PM