Krugman cree refutar la teoría austriaca con dos simples preguntas, que en su ignorancia asume que los austriacos son incapaces de responder. Robert Murphy ha publicado recientemente una refutación (ya van...), que se complementa con una entrada de Mike Shedlock que mencioné hace un tiempo.
Copio las preguntas de Krugman y debajo las respuestas de Murphy y de Shedlock. Juzgad por vosotros mismos.
Pregunta 1 (Krugman):
1. It doesn’t explain why there isn’t mass unemployment when bubbles are growing as well as shrinking — why didn’t we need high unemployment elsewhere to get those people into the nail-pounding-in-Nevada business?
Respuesta de Robert Murphy:
The answer, of course, is that businesses armed with newly printed Fed dollars must bid away workers from their original niches in the structure of production. Obviously, this process doesn't lead to mass unemployment. The workers voluntarily quit their original jobs because the inflated money supply has allowed a few firms to offer them higher salaries. The Fed's injection of new money has not yet distorted the whole economy, and so there is no reason for other businesses to suddenly find themselves in trouble and lay off workers at the beginning of the artificial boom.
In contrast, once the bubble has popped, many firms realize they are embarked on unsustainable projects. They need to lay off their workers. Unemployment goes up, and only as workers reluctantly accept lower wages can they be reintegrated into the economy. On average, workers are earning less during the bust period than at the height of the boom. This is because the salaries and wages of the boom period were exaggerations of the true "fundamentals" of worker productivity, and also because the fundamentals themselves have been hurt due to the waste of capital during the boom period.
Pregunta 2 (Krugman):
It doesn't explain why recessions reduce [employment] across the board, not just in industries that were bloated by a bubble.
Respuesta de Murphy:
if the "hangover theorists" are right, you would expect the connection between unemployment jumps and housing-price collapses to be weaker the farther along you get from the bursting of the bubble. (...)
I looked at the list of the 10 states that had seen the biggest percentage decline in home prices since the 2nd quarter of 2006, and I also looked at the list of the 10 states that had seen the biggest jump in the unemployment rate from June 2006 to December 2008. (...)
The 7th through 10th slots on the two lists didn't match up, but check out the worst 6 slots in both lists. (...)
Note that North Carolina and Arizona are the only ones that don't match. That seems like a very strong correlation.
Respuesta de Mike Shedlock:
When a house is built a certain number of things go into that house: a refrigerator, stove, microwave, lighting fixtures, carpeting, fireplaces, kitchen cabinets. The house is made of brick or lumber or a combination. Someone has to make the refrigerator, stove, microwave, lighting fixtures, carpeting, fireplaces, kitchen cabinets, etc. Someone has to make the frames and trusses for the house.
The frames and trusses are more likely than not made in the US, not necessarily where the housing bubbles were. It takes workers to do that. And it takes port workers to unload the a refrigerators, stoves, microwaves, lighting fixtures, carpeting, fireplaces, kitchen cabinets etc that was no doubt made in China. Limestone, sand and gravel typically comes from nearby quarries to reduce shipping costs.
La pregunta, por tanto, no es "por qué las recesiones reducen el empleo a lo largo y ancho de la economía y no solo en las industrias infladas por la burbuja, sino qué segmentos de la economía no han sufrido el impacto de la burbuja inmobiliaria (en rigor, burbuja crediticia). Shedlock concluye, después de una detallada explicación, que estos son los sectores directamente afectados por la burbuja.
- Manufacturing
- Retail
- Shipping
- Finance
- Construction
- Travel
- Leisure
- Restaurants
- Energy
- Commodities
- Trucks and SUVs
- City, State, Local Government Spending
ACTUALIZACIÓN: Juan Ramón Rallo se suma al coro de respuestas: "Krugman sigue sin enterarse".
