Follow by Email

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Prof. Robert Skidelsky on the Four Economic Fallacies

Prof. Robert Skidelsky, the famous Keynes biographer, has declared himself on what he defines as the Four Great Economic Fallacies of our Time. Seldom have I read a clearer statement on the principal economic questions of our time. Whether or not one agrees with Prof. Skidelsky is a different matter but he certainly has defined his views in admirable clarity!

Prof.  Robert Skidelsky: 

1. The Swabian Housewife. “One should simply have asked the Swabian housewife,” said German Chancellor Angela Merkel after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008. “She would have told us that you cannot live beyond your means.”

This sensible-sounding logic currently underpins austerity. The problem is that it ignores the effect of the housewife’s thrift on total demand. If all households curbed their expenditures, total consumption would fall, and so, too, would demand for labor. If the housewife’s husband loses his job, the household will be worse off than before.

The general case of this fallacy is the “fallacy of composition”: what makes sense for each household or company individually does not necessarily add up to the good of the whole. The particular case that John Maynard Keynes identified was the “paradox of thrift”: if everyone tries to save more in bad times, aggregate demand will fall, lowering total savings, because of the decrease in consumption and economic growth.

If the government tries to cut its deficit, households and firms will have to tighten their purse strings, resulting in less total spending. As a result, however much the government cuts its spending, its deficit will barely shrink. And if all countries pursue austerity simultaneously, lower demand for each country’s goods will lead to lower domestic and foreign consumption, leaving all worse off.

2. The government cannot spend money it does not have. This fallacy – often repeated by British Prime Minister David Cameron – treats governments as if they faced the same budget constraints as households or companies. But governments are not like households or companies. They can always get the money they need by issuing bonds.

But won’t an increasingly indebted government have to pay ever-higher interest rates, so that debt-service costs eventually consume its entire revenue? The answer is no: the central bank can print enough extra money to hold down the cost of government debt. This is what so-called quantitative easing does. With near-zero interest rates, most Western governments cannot afford not to borrow.

This argument does not hold for a government without its own central bank, in which case it faces exactly the same budget constraint as the oft-cited Swabian housewife. That is why some eurozone member states got into so much trouble until the European Central Bank rescued them.

3. The national debt is deferred taxation. According to this oft-repeated fallacy, governments can raise money by issuing bonds, but, because bonds are loans, they will eventually have to be repaid, which can be done only by raising taxes. And, because taxpayers expect this, they will save now to pay their future tax bills. The more the government borrows to pay for its spending today, the more the public saves to pay future taxes, canceling out any stimulatory effect of the extra borrowing.

The problem with this argument is that governments are rarely faced with having to “pay off” their debts. They might choose to do so, but mostly they just roll them over by issuing new bonds. The longer the bonds’ maturities, the less frequently governments have to come to the market for new loans.

More important, when there are idle resources (for example, when unemployment is much higher than normal), the spending that results from the government’s borrowing brings these resources into use. The increased government revenue that this generates (plus the decreased spending on the unemployed) pays for the extra borrowing without having to raise taxes.

4. The national debt is a burden on future generations. This fallacy is repeated so often that it has entered the collective unconscious. The argument is that if the current generation spends more than it earns, the next generation will be forced to earn more than it spends to pay for it.

But this ignores the fact that holders of the very same debt will be among the supposedly burdened future generations. Suppose my children have to pay off the debt to you that I incurred. They will be worse off. But you will be better off. This may be bad for the distribution of wealth and income, because it will enrich the creditor at the expense of the debtor, but there will be no net burden on future generations.

The principle is exactly the same when the holders of the national debt are foreigners (as with Greece), though the political opposition to repayment will be much greater.


  1. Imho it is always (too) easy to express a too simplistic view.

    Eg. 2: "Governments can always get the money they need by issuing bonds" is only true up to a certain limit when all of a sudden that policy will trigger hyper inflation.

    H. Trickler

    1. I think the entire idea behind this article WAS to oversimplify and points (1) through (3) are pretty good simplifications. With point (4) he is going overboard, though. This is like saying: I have 2 sons; before dying, I borrow a lot and put the money into a savings book; one son inherits the debt and the other one the savings book; between the two of them, they come out alright.

      I think all those debt protagonists have gotten used to the idea that debt has become almost cost-free. All they would have to do is look at the budget and check the amount of interest included in expenditures. And then calculate how much could have been spent on education, R&D, health care, etc. if it hadn't had to be spent on interest.

    2. It must be blindness or even stupidity to believe that interest rates will stay close to zero for extended periods. I wonder how long time people will accept that pension funds cost much more because they do no longer sufficiently grow over 50 years...

      H. Trickler

  2. In point 4 he talks about a transfer of money from tax payers to bond holders. In fact that description of the transfer of money in debt spending is incorrect. The actual transfer in debt spending is from tax payer and to the recipient of government spending and so it is wrong to net off the bond holder and tax payer as does. The recipient of government spending has more , the bondholder gets their money back and the The tax payer will be paying.