• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Larry Summers, Satirist

    NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images/Newscom

    NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images/Newscom

    One must applaud Larry Summers for his cagey satire in a Washington Post op-ed today. He lets on—subtly—that the recent resurrection of “secular stagnation” is all an elaborate spoof.

    Secular stagnation is an odd theory that predicts a perpetually weak economy due to low desire to invest. It contradicts both neoclassical and Keynesian growth theories. The first time it was entertained, in 1938, it was immediately followed by several decades of the strongest economic growth in history. The second time, in 1982, it again presaged a boom. History is repeating itself now as farce, or perhaps Summers hopes that the phrase is a charm that will set off a third great economic expansion.

    The tipoff that he is writing satire comes in his policy proposal for addressing the investment decline caused by secular stagnation:

    Regulation that requires more rapid replacement of coal-fired power plants would increase investment and push growth as well as help the environment.

    Summers echoes the immortal satire of Frédéric Bastiat, who teased the French parliament in 1845 with a request for greater regulation of a natural resource even cheaper than coal:

    We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull’s-eyes, deadlights, and blinds—in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country.…

    If you shut off as much as possible all access to natural light, and thereby create a need for artificial light, what industry in France will not ultimately be encouraged?

    Only a politician could think that restrictions on the use of natural resources increase both well-being and economic activity. In reality, a requirement to replace coal power plants would have a similar effect as an increase in the rate of depreciation or as industrial destruction by Luddites. The result might be more gross investment but, since depreciation and destruction are netted out, lower net investment. In order to increase the productive capacity of the economy, net investment must increase. As the old econ chestnut goes, “no one eats depreciation.”

    Posted in Economics [slideshow_deploy]

    Comments are closed.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×