As economic adversity contin-ues to spread, from Athens to Ma-drid, London to the Beltway, austeri-ty has become a most dangerous idea. What now dominates the world is the popular theory that if coun-tries just tighten their belts, strong growth and lower unemployment will soon follow. It is the opposite of the Keynes ian lessons learned from the Great Depression and is support-ed by neither historical nor empirical evidence. The world’s leading eco-nomic commentators, Nobel Laure-ate Paul Krugman of the New York Times and Martin Wolf of the Finan­cial Times, have regularly railed against austerity, but to little avail.

Advocates of austerity in Western Europe have claimed that it would rapidly reduce budget deficits and calm financial markets. Instead, it has failed in every country in which it has been applied. Imposed on financially shaky European nations by their more robust partners, par-ticularly Germany, it is largely re-sponsible for unemployment rates approaching 25 percent in Spain and Greece, which was the level reached in America during the Great Depression. In Portugal and Ireland, unemployment stands at roughly 15 percent. And in the euro zone, much of which is now in a full- fledged recession, the average rate of joblessness is 11 percent—the high-

est since the monetary union was created in 1999.

The United States, too, has been attracted to austerity for some time. We are not, it’s true, obliged to slash budgets in order to obtain a bailout from the bureaucrats in Frankfurt am Main. But despite our weak economy, there is no fiscal stimulus coming next year, since both Repub-lican and Democratic lawmakers in-sist that the federal deficit is the na-tion’s most urgent problem. In fact, federal as well as state and local spending has been falling for a year or more, and if we go over the “fiscal cliff” of automatic spending cuts mandated by the 2011 budget com-promise and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, government stimulus will shrink much further. Even if Washington softens the blow by post-poning or reversing tax and spending changes, government will suck hun- dreds of billions of dollars out of the economy. If there is a central idea behind austerity economics, it is the de-bunked pre- Depression assumption that economies are self- adjusting. As incomes fall and borrowing declines, goes the argument, interest rates also come down, encouraging business to borrow and invest again. And in a recession, of course, prices may also come down, so consumers will start buying again. The financial estab-lishment of the early 1930s, led by Republican treasury secretary An-

drew Mellon, was content to sit tight and allow the economy to recover on its own. Mellon feared that a stimu-lus package and its resulting budget deficits would quickly breed infla-tion, drive up interest rates, and ruin whatever halting progress had al-ready been made.

Today the heirs to Andrew Mel-lon imagine inflation to be around every corner. John Maynard Keynes thought he had rid the world of this destructive idea with his classic 1936 study, The General Theory of Em­ployment, Interest and Money. Not so. John Cochrane, an outspoken economist at the University of Chi-cago who has characterized Keynes-ian fiscal stimulus as “insane,” pro-claimed in early 2009 that the greatest danger to America would be high inf lation—unleashed, of course, by such big- spending federal policies as President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package. The ubiq-uitous economic historian Niall Fer-guson, now of Harvard, forecast a similarly deleterious increase in in-terest rates. (Even with both infla-tion and U.S. interest rates at negli-gible levels today, neither Cochrane nor Ferguson has recanted.) Mean-while, such Mellonites as the ante-diluvian Jens Weid mann, the cur-rent head of the German central bank, stubbornly repeat the same warnings to European policymakers.

How, you may ask, did we get here? To appreciate the hold austeri-ty has on otherwise intelligent

the AntI-economIstThe Austerity Myth

By Jeff Madrick

THE ANTI-ECONOMIST 11

Jeff Madrick is a senior fellow at the Roose­velt Institute and the author, most recently, of Age of Greed.

(11-13) October Anti-Economist Final2_0821 11 8/21/12 5:42 PM

economists, we must understand that it is as much a superstition as an economic theory. Like all super-stitions, its roots are deep in human nature. Self- denial, from the Odyssey to the Old Testament, has been a traditional reaction to difficult cir-cumstances. Sacrifice is the rallying cry of war, just as fasting is a central purifying practice of many religions. Self- sacrifice is also, sad to say, deep-ly attractive as an answer to eco-nomic problems. It feels right—a form of penitence and machismo. Perhaps that’s why Spain and Greece have voted in austerity re-gimes, even at the cost of ruining their economies and civic life, and as vociferous anti- austerity minori-ties in those countries grow louder and more anguished.

The problem is that although aus-terity may work for individuals, it sel-dom works for economies. To the contrary, frequently it makes matters worse. If all individuals tighten their belts, demand for goods and services will fall, workers will be fired, and demand will fall even more. Business won’t invest without growing sales: this was Keynes’s message in a nut-shell. He argued that government had to supply the spending for goods and services that would restore in-centives to invest, while simultane-ously lowering interest rates. Rather than adjusting down, unemployment could stay high indefinitely.

The depression of the 1930s should have disabused economists of the belief in the self- adjusting propensities of free- market econo-mies. Unfortunately, the theory has been resurrected in major American and British universities over the past generation. Not only is stimu-lus not really necessary, these aca-demics assert; it won’t work. They argue that more government stimu-lus won’t lead to spending by con-sumers, who instead will save their money because they realize taxes will eventually be raised to finance the debt. They also argue that an increased federal deficit will crowd out private borrowing and produc-tive investment, and eventually jack up interest rates. In other words, government spending will have lit-tle or no bang for its buck.

This theory is mostly baloney, es-pecially during economically weak periods. If Americans are given mon-ey now, they will certainly spend it—or at least work down their debt. As for interest rates, they are at record lows today, despite high budget deficits. Needless to say, austerity econ-omists claim they have the evidence to support their views. Yet their re-search is shoddy and transparently misleading. Most often cited is a study by Harvard professors Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna, who gathered budget data for major na-tions over a generation and found that when deficits fell, periods of economic growth often followed. But deficits often fall for reasons that have nothing to do with auster-ity—a sudden boost in tax revenues from a stock- market boom, for exam-ple. Economists from the Interna-tional Monetary Fund, no hotbed of progressivism, swiftly challenged Alesina’s and Ardagna’s work. Their analysis of the historical data, focus-ing on occasions when governments made deliberate austerity decisions to cut deficits, found that in almost all such cases, unemployment rose and growth slowed—just as is hap-pening today.

Another popular but dubious finding is that public debt of 90 per-cent of GDP or more seriously im-pedes economic growth. This was the argument made by Kenneth Ro-goff and Carmen Rein hart, authors of the acclaimed book This Time Is Different. But their analysis is high-ly distorted by the soaring U.S. defi-cit during World War II, which they lumped together with other data to prove that such high debt leads to slow growth or to recession. When the war ended, the United States indeed fell into steep recession, but the decline was due to the end of intensive war production, not the high deficit.

Then there is John Taylor, a vet-eran economist from Stanford and a member of George H. W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, who was among the most vocal critics of the Obama stimulus in 2009. Taylor based his view on a simple paper he

had written in which he showed that Bush’s 2008 tax rebate of about $100 billion was not spent by con-sumers. Flat consumer spending, he argued, means no growth. But Chris tina Romer, a Berkeley econo-mist and former chair of Obama’s CEA, pointed out that consumption should have fallen at the same time because house prices were collaps-ing; that it held steady showed the rebate had worked.

The advocates of Keynes ian stimulus have built a stronger, more comprehensive empirical case in their favor than have proponents of austerity. The economy had fallen off a cliff when Obama was elected in 2008: Americans were losing jobs by the hundreds of thousands, and GDP was plummeting. But by the third quarter of 2009, a few months after the stimulus began reaching Americans, the free fall had stopped. More detailed analysis backs up this conclusion. For exam-ple, measuring the impact of the stimulus on state spending shows local improvements in growth. Rea-sonable estimates are that the stim-ulus created 3 million jobs in its first year.

Why, then, didn’t the economy continue to grow rapidly? Austerity advocates have claimed that persis-tent high unemployment is proof that the stimulus failed. The stimu-lus, in fact, was too small when measured against the depth of the recession. A second stimulus was necessary, but by then even the Democrats had been seduced by austerity economics and set out to chop away at the deficit.

There is considerably more evi-dence of the benefits of fiscal stimu-lus. Researchers have looked state by state at how military spending has affected local growth and found a close correlation between more growth and higher government ex-penditure. (In a classic example of hypocrisy, Republicans themselves are now demanding that military spending not be cut because it will cost jobs.) Other researchers have shown similar improvements in growth and employment in reaction to higher levels of local Medicaid spending. Still others find that the

12 HARPER’S MAGAZINE / OCTOBER 2012

(11-13) October Anti-Economist Final2_0821 12 8/21/12 5:42 PM

bang for the buck from fiscal stimu-lus is especially high when the economy is weak. Finally, the U.S. economy has grown significantly more than Europe’s since early 2009, when the stimulus was launched. According to Romer, such studies are only the beginning, and the “vast majority are coming to a similar conclusion.”

In the end, given so much evi-dence to the contrary, the populari-ty of the austerity myth largely owes to the power of a privileged elite. This is a class struggle. Austerity is essentially about smaller govern-ment, and a small- government ide-ology means lower taxes and fewer regulations—a boon to big business, especially the finance industry, and the rich. If less government weren’t such a boon, there would be more advocates for higher taxes among the deficit hawks, who instead shriek over every nickel extracted from the One Percent. Let’s recall that if the Bush tax cuts, including those for the middle class, were completely rescinded, the United States would for the next ten to fif-teen years have a deficit considered manageable by any reasonable stan-dard. And after 2025 or so, it is mostly the inef ficiency of the health- care system that will drive up federal spending. How many times must one say this for it to sink in?

A strong injection of fiscal stimu-lus into the economy—perhaps $500 billion—would for now put America back on track. But given the mortgage- debt overhang, it wouldn’t have the muscle needed to ensure longer- term growth. Fiscal stimulus has to be accompanied by significant mortgage relief. Additional spending should also be aimed at building America’s economic foundation, which requires investment in educa-tional quality, especially for the poor, and in infrastructure.

It is hard to be optimistic about the future, though, when a bad idea has such a strong hold. The Ger-mans can’t see beyond their own noses. In Europe, hope rests with leaders like François Hollande, the recently elected president of France, and the sometimes enlightened

Mario Draghi, head of the European Central Bank.

In the United States, meanwhile, budget- balancing obsessions will make a strong recovery unlikely. Austerity will become the next American president’s albatross. It may ensure a new recession in 2013 and, at the least, high unemploy-ment rates and ongoing budget def-icits for the foreseeable future. So-cial programs that benefit the middle class and the poor will be cut no matter who occupies the White House. Which is not to say that the election is irrelevant. Mitt Romney will embrace austerity with bright- eyed enthusiasm, and his running mate, Paul Ryan, seems to want to cut every entitlement in sight. Barack Obama is also likely to embrace it to some degree—but perhaps he, and we, will come to our senses. His health- care plan, having recently made it through the Supreme Court, may yet open a door to making government less unpopular. If so—and if he is re-elected—Obama will have to walk through that door and proclaim proudly the benefits of government. He will have to stimulate the econ-omy and, sometime later in his term, demand higher taxes to stabi-lize the debt and finance necessary public investment. Leaner and meaner may feel good to some, es-pecially those at the top who don’t bear the pain, but it will make what ails us much worse. n

THE ANTI-ECONOMIST 13

SUBSCRIBER ALERTDear Harper’s Magazine Readers,

It has come to our attention that several of our subscribers have received renewal notifications from an independent magazine clearinghouse doing business under the names Magazine Bill-ing Services, Publishers Processing Services Inc., and American Consumer Publish Assoc. These companies have not been authorized to sell sub-scriptions on behalf of Harper’s Magazine.

If you receive a renewal notice and are unsure of its authenticity, please call our subscriber services department and order your renewal through them. You may contact subscriber services by calling our toll-free number, (800) 444-4653, or via the Web at www.harpers.org.

(11-13) October Anti-Economist Final2_0821 13 8/21/12 5:42 PM

WHY DOES THEAn ExistEntiAl DEtECtiVE stORY

JIM HOLTWORLD EXIST?

NEW YORK TIMES

BESTSELLER

“Elegant and witty…. I can imagine few more enjoyable ways

of thinking than to read this book.” —Sarah Bakewell, New York Times

Book Review, Front Page Review

“There is no more entertaining, sure-footed, and witty guide

to the big questions.” —Daily Beast, Best Summer Reads of 2012

“Combines…raffish erudition with accounts of traveling to

tap the minds of cosmologists, theologians, particle physicists,

philosophers, mystics and others.” —Dwight Garner, New York Times

An irreverent sleuth traces the riddle of existence from the ancient world to modern times.

www.wwnorton.com