Well it turns out this is a misquote of Laurel and Hardy, but it is accurate when applied to government intervention in the financial sector. Christopher Westley has a nice break-down of the problems with the mortgage market.
Fred and I have been discussing these issues with our friend Ed Weick for close to 2 years. Ed is a successful businessman and investor, and a dedicated student of Austrian economics, and he has been quite concerned about the state of the financial sector in the US (and the world). Ed has not always been for nervous, during the 1990s and the dot.com bubble, Ed stressed that resources do not fall into "black-holes", but are reallocated during adjustment processes into more productive directions. The current situation, however, Ed contends is different.
Whenever you seek to lay out an argument for system wide financial catastrophe, I would argue that you need to specify: (a) the trigger, (b) a contagion mechanism, and (c) a reason why the financial catastrophe will not lead to just a readjustment, but instead into a systemic downturn.
My position on the current state of affairs, is that while government policies will continue to result in wild disturbances against a long term growth trend, but the as long as the long terms growth trends are dominated by gains from trade (Smithian growth) and gains from innovation (Schumpeterian growth), then government stupidity will not produce a system wide downturn. In other words, Smithian and Schumpeterian forces will off-set government stupidity.
In addition, I think a lot of the stories about the mortgage mess we are in fail to account for the market innovations that have evolved over the past two decades which diversify risk and manage the downside risk of stupidity in government.
So I believe that a serious market correction is in order, and that reallocation of resources will occur, but I don't see yet the contagion mechanism that will turn the adjustment process into a financial catastrophe for the entire US economy (let alone world economy). Save government nationalization of industry, closing down trading opportunities (domestic and international), and all out militarization, another Great Depression does not seem to be the relevant scenario. Tomorrow will still be better than today, the future our kids will inherit will be one of unimagined material progress and generalized prosperity. But if in the wake of market corrections to financial distortions government policies are instituted which curtail market processes of adjustment that re-price assets and reallocate ownership, and socialize risk rather than "privatize" risk burdens, then the more dire predictions currently offered may prove to be too optimistic. I am still betting that Smithian and Schumpeterian forces are out pacing government Stupidity.
Dr. Boettke-
Wesley contends that the horror of it all could come from the regulation that could result from a correction within the market place. Do you believe that this could have a significant impact on the future of the mortgage market and then have a contagion effect beyond the banking industry? I doubt, as you state, that the trouble will extend much beyond the subprime market.
Posted by: Matt C. | May 22, 2007 at 09:39 AM
Is China considered under "smithian gains from trade" label? If so, I agree completely: technology and globalization can keep malinvestments hidden. The problem is that they accumulate nonetheless. Besides, while technological improvements are erratical and cannot be relied upon for long term inflationary processes, China will sooner or later stop filling its belly with dollars. Sooner or later, we will need gains from trade with Dr Spock.
Posted by: LF | May 22, 2007 at 01:31 PM
PS I don't mean to say that international specialization requires trade deficits, it would be absurd.
Posted by: LF | May 22, 2007 at 01:32 PM
Dear Mr Boettke,
In regarding the monetary system is it even possible to pay all this debt off? Lets say the Government wanted to get rid of all its debt like in the 1830’s. As money is only created through borrowing, does that mean that the only way this could occur would be for the people to themselves get into even bigger debt? But wouldn’t this merely transfer the debt from the Government to the people?
And if that is the case, does it mean that we have lost a degree of our economic freedom?
Posted by: Fraser Hungerford | May 23, 2007 at 01:41 AM
There's your trigger mechanism: government regulation in the face of market correction. If markets are never allowed to correct, and the correction is always legislated away (Scheumer and Clinton, the twin horrors!) then there is no hope. The solution is, as always, to educate people about how the market works.
Posted by: Russell Nelson | June 09, 2007 at 11:36 AM
You can offer practically any kind of service using the internet. You just have to make sure there is a market for it and that you can actually fulfill job orders. Some of the most common internet jobs involve clerical jobs such data entry, performing tasks as a virtual assistant, web development, word processing, telemarketing, book keeping and others. You can work as a copy writer, be a sales representative or even become a pro-blogger. You can set up a business that targets clients in your own town or people halfway around the globe.
Thanks, John http://advancemagnumcash.pixieinfo.com/articles.html
Posted by: John | November 01, 2007 at 09:49 AM
You are wearing me out just reading about it. Someone else has a birthday coming up pretty soon...?
Posted by: bicycle clothes | April 07, 2011 at 11:03 PM