Krugman's Twinkie Economic Myths

I remember when Dan White, the former San Francisco city supervisor employed the infamous “Twinkie Defense” in his 1979 trial for the murder of the city’s mayor, George Moscone, and fellow supervisor Harvey Milk. Apparently, the jurors were bamboozled by this nonsense and convicted him not of first-degree murder but rather voluntary manslaughter, leading to a sentence of seven years (for which he served five).

Most of us had not thought much about Twinkies and their supposed threat until Hostess recently announced its intention to shutter its operations because of an ongoing strike and its inability to compete in the present economy. However, in recent years, Twinkies supposedly had become famous because of their long shelf life, something that was exaggerated with people claiming the sugar-laden snacks could survive nuclear holocaust.

Well, the company that created them has not survived Barack Obama’s economic holocaust, but the economic myths of the era in which Hostess cakes did very well also have outlasted the combination of sugar and chemicals, and who better to perpetuate these myths than Paul Krugman? In a recent column, Krugman harkens back to the 1950s — the “Golden Era” for Twinkies — and claims that the economy then was strong because of high taxes and union workforce dominance. He writes:

Needless to say, it wasn’t really innocent. But the ’50s — the Twinkie
Era — do offer lessons that remain relevant in the 21st century. Above
all, the success of the postwar American economy demonstrates that,
contrary to today’s conservative orthodoxy, you can have prosperity
without demeaning workers and coddling the rich.

Consider the question of tax rates on the wealthy. The modern American
right, and much of the alleged center, is obsessed with the notion that
low tax rates at the top are essential to growth. Remember that Erskine
Bowles and Alan Simpson, charged with producing a plan to curb deficits,
nonetheless somehow ended up listing “lower tax rates” as a “guiding
principle.”

Yet in the 1950s incomes in the top bracket faced a marginal tax rate of
91, that’s right, 91 percent, while taxes on corporate profits were
twice as large, relative to national income, as in recent years. The
best estimates suggest that circa 1960 the top 0.01 percent of Americans
paid an effective federal tax rate of more than 70 percent, twice what
they pay today.

Nor were high taxes the only burden wealthy businessmen had to bear.
They also faced a labor force with a degree of bargaining power hard to
imagine today. In 1955 roughly a third of American workers were union
members. In the biggest companies, management and labor bargained as
equals, so much so that it was common to talk about corporations serving
an array of “stakeholders” as opposed to merely serving stockholders.

Furthermore, Krugman argues that the road to prosperity is for the government to have massive tax increases and a unionized workforce:

Along the way, however, we’ve forgotten something important — namely,
that economic justice and economic growth aren’t incompatible. America
in the 1950s made the rich pay their fair share; it gave workers the
power to bargain for decent wages and benefits; yet contrary to
right-wing propaganda then and now, it prospered. And we can do that
again.  

So there it is. The economy was prosperous because of high tax rates (the same rates Krugman told me in response to a question in 2004 that were “insane”) and because labor unions were driving up the cost of doing business. Capital had nothing to do with it. The fact that the USA was the one industrialized nation that had not been on the receiving end of mass bombing and artillery attacks had nothing to do with it.

No, the prosperity of the 1950s (when at least a third of Americans officially lived in poverty) was due to massive wealth transfers. However, Krugman fails to point out that during this era, business owners and entrepreneurs did not have to deal with the massive influx of  government regulations at all levels, although I am sure that he would tell readers that had government been even more restrictive at that time, the economy would have prospered even more because higher costs of business translate into more wealth for owners of factors of production, and higher costs are the real source of prosperity.

Not surprisingly, Krugman misses a bit of history along the way. By the end of the 1970s, as these unsustainable policies of high taxes and inflation continued, the U.S. economy was in crisis, and the 1980 election occurred in that atmosphere. Far from creating the prosperity of the 1950s, these policies which Krugman praises led to less capitalization down the road, and when they reached their natural end, it was clear that much of the capital stock of this country was still stuck in the postwar decade while Japan and other nations had moved well past the ruins of the aftermath of World War II.

Paul Krugman’s economic missives are full of fallacies, and his latest column is no exception. He employes the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy, not to mention the Broken Window Fallacy along with his belief that government policies can eliminate the Law of Opportunity Cost.

Yes, Krugman wants to do what all good Progressives claim is heresy — “Turn Back the Clock” — and his views are as mistaken as the notion that Twinkies really constitute health foods. I doubt seriously that if the government were to slap down even higher tax rates and force unionism on every firm that out of that would rise prosperity.

No, out of that would rise Argentina of the 1950s and 1960s, and we know how well that little experiment worked.