We Cannot Separate Economics and Politics. And Those Who Speak Out Against Bad Policy Are Helping the Economy ... And Our Individual Investments → Washingtons Blog
We Cannot Separate Economics and Politics. And Those Who Speak Out Against Bad Policy Are Helping the Economy ... And Our Individual Investments - Washingtons Blog

Monday, February 7, 2011

We Cannot Separate Economics and Politics. And Those Who Speak Out Against Bad Policy Are Helping the Economy ... And Our Individual Investments

Some people criticize the injection of politics into economic discussions.

But economic historians tell us that economists used to understand and accept that economics is wholly interrelated with politics, and that politics affects our economy. They note that modern economists have artificially tried to somehow separate the two, like Descartes tried to separate the mind from the body.

Indeed, the father of modern economics - Adam Smith - talked a lot about politics in relation to economics.

If mainstream ("neoclassical") economists think that politics is an irrelevant and separate topic, it may be because they are using wholly discredited models or that "it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

In the real world, political decisions determine who gets bailed out and who doesn't, who stays afloat and who goes under, who gets rewarded and who gets prosecuted (and if prosecuted, who gets hit hard and who gets off with a slap on the wrist ... or a slap on the back). As such, it should be obvious that we cannot discuss our economy or even investing decisions without addressing politics.

Another example of the intersection of politics and the economy is military policy. America's military policy is directly connected with the economy, and is indirectly connected with our individual investments.


  1. War is bad for the economy. The multi-trillion dollar price tag for the wars in Iraq and elsewhere are bankrupting our country. Moreover, war always causes inflation, and thus decreases the value of our money.
  2. We were lied into war
  3. The lies are continuing
  4. The state of emergency we've been living under for the past 10 years has interfered with the free markets
  5. It is much harder to make investment decisions when we are not in a free market
  6. Therefore, if enough of us speak out against the ongoing lies, we may have some chance of helping the economy and reinstating some semblance of a free market ... which would help increase the value of our money, and make investing simpler
As I noted last November, the lack of trust by the American people in the government's military decisions is harming the economy:
Trust in Government is Necessary for a Stable Economy

A 2005 letter in premier scientific journal Nature reviewed the research on trust and economics:

Trust ... plays a key role in economic exchange and politics. In the absence of trust among trading partners, market transactions break down. In the absence of trust in a country's institutions and leaders, political legitimacy breaks down. Much recent evidence indicates that trust contributes to economic, political and social success.

Forbes wrote an article in 2006 entitled "The Economics of Trust". The article summarizes the importance of trust in creating a healthy economy:

Imagine going to the corner store to buy a carton of milk, only to find that the refrigerator is locked. When you've persuaded the shopkeeper to retrieve the milk, you then end up arguing over whether you're going to hand the money over first, or whether he is going to hand over the milk. Finally you manage to arrange an elaborate simultaneous exchange. A little taste of life in a world without trust--now imagine trying to arrange a mortgage.

Being able to trust people might seem like a pleasant luxury, but economists are starting to believe that it's rather more important than that. Trust is about more than whether you can leave your house unlocked; it is responsible for the difference between the richest countries and the poorest.

"If you take a broad enough definition of trust, then it would explain basically all the difference between the per capita income of the United States and Somalia," ventures Steve Knack, a senior economist at the World Bank who has been studying the economics of trust for over a decade. That suggests that trust is worth $12.4 trillion dollars a year to the U.S., which, in case you are wondering, is 99.5% of this country's income. ***

Above all, trust enables people to do business with each other. Doing business is what creates wealth. ***

Economists distinguish between the personal, informal trust that comes from being friendly with your neighbors and the impersonal, institutionalized trust that lets you give your credit card number out over the Internet.

Similarly, market psychologists Richard L. Peterson M.D. and Frank Murtha, PhD noted:
Trust is the oil in the engine of capitalism, without it, the engine seizes up.

Confidence is like the gasoline, without it the machine won't move.

Trust is gone: there is no longer trust between counterparties in the financial system. Furthermore, confidence is at a low. Investors have lost their confidence in the ability of shares to provide decent returns (since they haven't).
Two professors of finance pointed out:

The drop in trust, we believe, is a major factor behind the deteriorating economic conditions. To demonstrate its importance, we launched the Chicago Booth/Kellogg School Financial Trust Index. Our first set of data—based on interviews conducted at the end of December 2008—shows that between September and December, 52 percent of Americans lost trust in the banks. Similarly, 65 percent lost trust in the stock market. A BBB/Gallup poll that surveyed a similar sample of Americans last April confirms this dramatic drop. At that time, 42 percent of Americans trusted financial institutions, versus 34 percent in our survey today, while 53 percent said they trusted U.S. companies, versus just 12 percent today.

As trust declines, so does Americans’ willingness to invest their money in the financial system. Our data show that trust in the stock market affects people’s intention to buy stocks, even after accounting for expectations of future stock-market performance. Similarly, a person’s trust in banks predicts the likelihood that he will make a run on his bank in a moment of crisis: 25 percent of those who don’t trust banks withdrew their deposits and stored them as cash last fall, compared with only 3 percent of those who said they still trusted the banks. Thus, trust in financial institutions is a key factor for the smooth functioning of capital markets and, by extension, the economy. Changes in trust matter.

They quote a Nobel laureate economist on the subject:
“Virtually every commercial transaction has within itself an element of trust,” writes economist Kenneth Arrow, a Nobel laureate. When we deposit money in a bank, we trust that it’s safe. When a company orders goods, it trusts its counterpart to deliver them in good faith. Trust facilitates transactions because it saves the costs of monitoring and screening; it is an essential lubricant that greases the wheels of the economic system.
And a distinguished international group of economists (Giancarlo Corsetti, Michael P. Devereux, Luigi Guiso, John Hassler, Gilles Saint-Paul, Hans-Werner Sinn, Jan-Egbert Sturm and Xavier Vives) wrote:
Public distrust of bankers and financial markets has risen dramatically with the financial crisis. This column argues that this loss of trust in the financial system played a critical role in the collapse of economic activity that followed. To undo the damage, financial regulation needs to focus on restoring that trust.
They noted:
Trust is crucial in many transactions and certainly in those involving financial exchanges. The massive drop in trust associated with this crisis will therefore have important implications for the future of financial markets. Data show that in the late 1970s, the percentage of people who reported having full trust in banks, brokers, mutual funds or the stock market was around 40%; it had sunk to around 30% just before the crisis hit, and collapsed to barely 5% afterwards. It is now even lower than the trust people have in other people (randomly selected of course).

Time Magazine pointed out:

Traditionally, gold has been a store of value when citizens do not trust their government politically or economically.
In other words, the government's political actions affect investments, such as gold, and thus the broader economy.

Trust Is At An All-Time Low

Unfortunately, the public's trust in government as a whole (and see this and this), the justice system, bankers, and the corporate media are at all-time lows.


Partly because the government has been repeatedly caught lying.

The government repeatedly said about the subprime crisis, banking crisis, debt crisis, mortgage crisis, and other economic crises:
  • "It's contained"
  • "We've got it under control"
  • "We're going to fix it"
It wasn't, and they didn't ... and so people have lost trust in the government.

But it's not just the economy. The government also got caught making false claims that:
  • That the government doesn't spy on Americans (it did even before 9/11), Americans don't torture, etc.
It is basic human nature that - if you catch someone lying about one topic - you will tend to doubt the truth of what he is saying in other areas as well.

So Americans' loss of trust in the government's political actions have also undermined their trust in the government's statements and actions in the economic field.

But there's another important reason for Americans' lack of trust in our government and our economy: the failure to prosecute the criminals.

Prosecuting the Criminals and Launching REAL Investigations Is Necessary to Restore Trust

One of the leading business schools in America - the Wharton School of Business - has written an essay on the psychological causes and solutions to the economic crisis. Wharton points out that restoring trust is the key to recovery, and that trust cannot be restored until wrongdoers are held accountable:

According to David M. Sachs, a training and supervision analyst at the Psychoanalytic Center of Philadelphia, the crisis today is not one of confidence, but one of trust. "Abusive financial practices were unchecked by personal moral controls that prohibit individual criminal behavior, as in the case of [Bernard] Madoff, and by complex financial manipulations, as in the case of AIG." The public, expecting to be protected from such abuse, has suffered a trauma of loss similar to that after 9/11. "Normal expectations of what is safe and dependable were abruptly shattered," Sachs noted. "As is typical of post-traumatic states, planning for the future could not be based on old assumptions about what is safe and what is dangerous. A radical reversal of how to be gratified occurred."

People now feel more gratified saving money than spending it, Sachs suggested. They have trouble trusting promises from the government because they feel the government has let them down.

He framed his argument with a fictional patient named Betty Q. Public, a librarian with two teenage children and a husband, John, who had recently lost his job. "She felt betrayed because she and her husband had invested conservatively and were double-crossed by dishonest, greedy businessmen, and now she distrusted the government that had failed to protect them from corporate dishonesty. Not only that, but she had little trust in things turning around soon enough to enable her and her husband to accomplish their previous goals.

"By no means a sophisticated economist, she knew ... that some people had become fantastically wealthy by misusing other people's money -- hers included," Sachs said. "In short, John and Betty had done everything right and were being punished, while the dishonest people were going unpunished."

Helping an individual recover from a traumatic experience provides a useful analogy for understanding how to help the economy recover from its own traumatic experience, Sachs pointed out. The public will need to "hold the perpetrators of the economic disaster responsible and take what actions they can to prevent them from harming the economy again." In addition, the public will have to see proof that government and business leaders can behave responsibly before they will trust them again, he argued.

Note that Sachs urges "hold[ing] the perpetrators of the economic disaster responsible." In other words, just "looking forward" and promising to do things differently isn't enough.

Economists such as William Black and James Galbraith and Nobel prize winning economists Joseph Stiglitz and George Akerlof agree.

Indeed, polls show that:

  • Americans want those who committed financial fraud to be prosecuted
Remember, distrust in the political actions of government officials undermines the economy as well. Therefore, the economy will not recover until the economic criminals are prosecuted, and there are real investigations into 9/11 (even the 9/11 Commissioners themselves think there should be more investigation: see this and this), the Iraq war, torture, spying on Americans and other government failures.
So people who criticize the government's lies, and call for the prosecutions of those who made the misstatements, are actually working towards stabilizing our economy, and making our investment decisions a little easier.


  1. Hello and good day,

    Please check out my blog - power in numbers, like you've said:


    One note about 9/11. We know it was an inside job, but we continually have to prove it to people, to ourselves even, because the truth has been so downtrodden. I really think we need to reassess how the internet holds us back from our greatest potential, making us prisoners in space. I don't think our sedentary revolution is translating into the results we need.

  2. “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence”. John Adams

    “The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law”. Plato

    The great force of evil and injustice that has strangled our American Democracy and destroyed our American economy is as brazen and confident as the Fascist Nazi regime that destroyed Germany’s Democracy. Like all criminals, the glue that holds them together is bribery and gang loyalty that protects them from prosecution and they will continue with their criminal enterprises until they are arrested and brought to justice.

    The question is how much pain will the American people take before they rebel? Certainly, the 112 Congress must realize that when there is a rebellion, their jobs and necks are on the line and the many millions that they have acquired during their tenure will be questioned and examined. I expect a rash of resignations and retirements in Congress, encourage them.

    What is George W. Bush the Great Traitor most worried about today? Well, in his great communicator role he inarticulately blurts out a new word that he coined on his very own—“NATIVISM”--. I suppose, in Bush think that would mean “Going Native” toward Freedom, Independence, Liberty and Democracy Ha. Ha.


    Bush wanted to say “Nationalism” but he didn’t have enough guts. Ha. Ha. Who is in Treason against the United States? Ha. Ha. Even the Chinese Communist are “Nationalist” who takes care of their own people first.

    "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the wickedest of men will do the wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." John Maynard Keynes

    “An economist is a man who states the obvious in terms of the incomprehensible”. - Alfred A. Knopf

    “Today Americans are ruled by propaganda. Americans have little regard for truth, little access to it, and little ability to recognize it. -Paul Craig Roberts

  3. I agree that Americans seem less able than other nationals to “separate politics from economics”. I’m constantly irritated by claims along the lines of “increased spending on health will exacerbate the deficit”.

    That sort of statement is nonsense. The question as to whether a country spends more on public health provision is a purely political decision. No economic problem arises in consequence. Put another way, the latter increased spending will NOT exacerbate the deficit if it’s covered by increased tax.

    In contrast, there is the purely economic questions, like how big a deficit should we have, and what are the consequences for inflation, unemployment and so on. Plus, should the deficit accumulate as extra national debt or extra monetary base.

  4. This is an extraordinary piece. Trust is the issue that needs to be dealt with. Thank you!


  5. I hope you don't mind my muscial insight regarding the economy

    Song title They Did The Wild Life Boogie .



→ Thank you for contributing to the conversation by commenting. We try to read all of the comments (but don't always have the time).

→ If you write a long comment, please use paragraph breaks. Otherwise, no one will read it. Many people still won't read it, so shorter is usually better (but it's your choice).

→ The following types of comments will be deleted if we happen to see them:

-- Comments that criticize any class of people as a whole, especially when based on an attribute they don't have control over

-- Comments that explicitly call for violence

→ Because we do not read all of the comments, I am not responsible for any unlawful or distasteful comments.