Boeing and the Higgs Effect



In their calls for greatly expanding the Federal Reserve System’s and Treasury Department’s roles in the economy, Chairman Bernanke, Secretaries Paulson and Geithner, and their academic enablers have repeatedly emphasized the temporary nature of these “emergency” measures. “History is full of examples in which the policy responses to financial crises have been slow and inadequate, often resulting ultimately in greater economic damage and increased fiscal costs. In this episode, by contrast, policymakers in the United States and around the globe responded with speed and force to arrest a rapidly deteriorating and dangerous situation,” said Bernanke in September. Yeah, no kidding. But, we are assured, the basic structure of our “free-enterprise” system remains soundly in place.

However, as Bob Higgs has taught us, “temporary,” “emergency” government measures are never that. Indeed, virtually all the major, permanent expansions of US government in the twentieth-century resulted from supposedly temporary measures adapted during war, recession, or some other “crisis,” real or imaginary. Cousin Naomi’s “disaster capitalism” thesis is exactly backward: it is socialism, or interventionism, that thrives during the crisis, and Washington, DC never looks back. I mean, does anyone seriously believe that the Fed will deny, or give back, the authority to purchase whatever financial assets it wishes at some future date when it deems the crisis officially “over”? Will the Treasury credibly commit never again to purchase equity or guarantee debt or otherwise protect some major industrial or financial firm after the economy returns to “normal”? Not a chance. Everything the authorities have done in the last two years to deal with this “emergency” will become part of the federal government’s permanent tool kit.

Today’s WSJ has a good example of Higgs’s ratchet effect, a front-pager on Boeing’s dependence on export loan guarantees from the Export-Import Bank, a federal government agency created in — you guessed it — 1934, as a temporary agency to deal with the Great Depression. “No company has deeper relations with Ex-Im Bank than Chicago-based Boeing. Without Ex-Im, aviation officials say, Boeing this year could have been forced to slash production, endangering hundreds of U.S. suppliers, thousands of skilled American jobs and billions of dollars in export contracts.” Bank official Bob Morin is described as “Ex-Im Bank’s rainmaker. His Boeing deals accounted for almost 40% of the bank’s $21 billion in business last year. To help Boeing through the credit crunch, his team has spent the past year developing government-backed bonds that promise to raise billions.” So, a massive industrial-planning apparatus, supposedly born during a temporary crisis, lives on as the lifeblood of a huge, politically connected US company.

Thank goodness all that money flowing to Goldman Sachs is only temporary!

[Cross-posted at Organizations and Markets]

4 Comment(s)

  1. Peter,

    Nine years ago, I took a special interest in this egregious government agency and wrote a short article about it for The Independent Review (Winter 2001). Anyone who seeks a brief introduction to its history and basic workings can find this piece available online here.

    Not for nothing did I title the article “Unmitigated Mercantilism.” As a well-entrenched element of the Apparatus of Permanent Predation that composes the U.S. government, this outfit goes on and on, year after year, with little notice, plundering the taxpayers and diminishing the economy’s efficiency for the sake of adding a bit to the already heaping plate of subsidies dished out to a handful of big corporations whose managers are, and long have been, extremely cozy with the state.

    Robert Higgs | Dec 9, 2009 | Reply

  2. Thanks Bob, I missed that one!

    Peter Klein | Dec 9, 2009 | Reply

  3. Peter,

    People feel that once government props something up, removing the props would cause damage. If they’re too big to fail now, they are too big to fail forever. When in doubt, err on the side of caution. We’ve long reached the point where only government can save us. Just listen to Ben Bernanke.

    But Robert Higgs, in numerous sources, has shown that in the past the the unimaginable didn’t happen. What about post WWII when government spending went in rapid reverse? Did we experience systemic failures such as those that Bernanke would predict? I don’t think so.

    Reuven Koblick | Dec 15, 2009 | Reply

  4. Propping up companies is an absolute roadblock to needed competitors entering the field. This stops innovation more than you can imagine and will ultimately be the downfall of the US economy. Are they not building the same plane tech over and over with only marginal fuel efficiency improvement at best? Yes, absolutely. The new offerings are twice the weight per seat as present models, luxury prevails. Fuel efficiency is no real priority. A recent MIT study shows if real airliner innovation come into play, a 70% reduction in fuel burn is feasible. 70%! That’s a PMPG improvement of 2.33 time’s present practice. About 100 PMPG is best practice now, that’s 233 PMPG if one really innovates. Airlines want to buy from an established player. That’s understandable. But the world needs a new paradigm in airliner tech. What’s the solution? Stop propping up existing players and bet on providers of new ideas. Just two builders of big planes are not adequate globally. The US is big enough to have a second big plane builder so it can prevail as a leader in the market.

    lloyd | May 31, 2011 | Reply

3 Trackback(s)

  1. Dec 15, 2009: from U.S. Government Should Take a Lesson from Dubai: Leave Venture Capital to Capitalists | The Beacon
  2. Mar 18, 2010: from Dodd Liquidation Panel « ThinkMarkets
  3. Mar 18, 2010: from Dodd Liquidation Panel

Post a Comment