Cheap money

Water, water everywhere

and all the boards did shrink,

Water, water everywhere

nor any drop to drink

- Rime of the Ancient Mariner, Samuel Taylor Coleridge

In this case money, money everywhere and the economy did shrink. Inflation is a powerful drug and Alan Greenspan and the rest of our masters are serious addicts. The party is over. We are feeling the hangover. It will be a bit before we can party, or even function normally again.

The Fed has announced its target funds rate is now 1.00%. Alan Greenspan of all people should understand that Keynesian economic prescriptions are bad news. Does anyone out on the East coast remember the 70's? Do you remember stagflation? High inflation, high unemployment at the same time. Or look at Japan, still suffering after more than a decade of cheap money. Cheap money does not work.

The stock markets are beginning to react positively to the cheap money, but that does not indicate that the economy is actually growing. In fact, it may just indicate another round of malinvestment, especially when we see news such as major corporations going for zero-coupon convertibles successfully.
(for the record I have a financial interest in Juniper and Lucent competitor Cisco Systems Inc.)

I wonder if it would do any good to send some books to all the Fed govenors, financial reporters, and various politicians - I'm thinking Gene Callahan's Economics for Real People for the reporters and politicians and Ludwig von Mises' Human Action for the supposed economists.

Share this

I think you mean to say

I think you mean to say Keynesian instead of "neo-classical eocnomic prescriptions".

Monetarists and Keynesians are both outside the neoclassical tradition, while Austrian economics is within the neoclassical tradition (just a non-mathematical/empiricist version).

The neoclassical prescription would have nothing to do with stimulus in the first place. Anyone who walks around claiming otherwise is a Keynesian/Monetarist, not a neo-classical.

I had always understood

I had always understood neo-classical to be Keynes, Chicago-school etc. Not Austrian. But the more more precise Keynesian works better anyway - so I changed it.

Oh no, Neoclassical is

Oh no, Neoclassical is contra-keynes, a (IIRC) late-70s rediscovery of classical economics. The neoclassical bit certainly doesn't figure that "tomorrow never comes" and has long-run considerations. The problem with it, is that neoclassical is far too mathematical; too many elegant mathematical models, not enough relevance to the real world.

Ahh, perhaps the source of

Ahh, perhaps the source of confusion is at hand. Neo-classical economics dates back much further. It was the attempt to make "economics" more scientific.
Keynes was a part of the neo-classical school. The neo-classicals rejected Keynes and (some) accepted the monetarist approach as a replacement in the 70's. In the late 80's Keynes was brought back into popularity in neo-classical theory, but not all neo-classical theorists agree on Keynes and Monetarism.

At any rate only Austrian economics has any real success explaining the last decade in Japan and the latest boom/bust - and seems to be pointing the right way for the coming years.

Exactly- the neoclassical

Exactly- the neoclassical model fails to take into account capital very well, and certainly can't make heads or tails of Japan. The malinvestment theory is the only one that fits the facts, and can possibly offer a way out (liquidation, liquidation, liquidation).