
Invisible Bond Vigilante portrait gallery
Paul Krugman has been going after those who wave the threat of Invisible Bond Vigilantes again — those people the Right are convinced are about to descend upon the US financial markets and wreck things because of Teh Enormous Debt and the lack of Austerity. As Krugman paints the picture, the financial industry MOTUs are saying one thing (“Be Afraid! Be Very Afraid!!”), but the actual bond market participants are saying another (“What? Me worry?”). As Nobel laureates are wont to do, Krugman points out that the economic models don’t support the story those who fear the Invisible Bond Vigilantes are telling. Then he searches for an empirical example that might possible prove that there is something to fear, and again comes up with crickets.
Sighing wistfully, Krugman closes with the following observation:
It’s quite remarkable: our policy discourse remains largely dominated by fears of an event that the fear-mongers can’t explain in theory, and for which they can offer no historical examples in practice.
It dominates, because the fear-mongers are largely con men, and con men don’t give a damn about economic theory nor history. As is the case with any con, the con men continue telling the story because the marks continue to fall for it. As is the case with any con, when the marks start to doubt the pitch, the pitch only gets stronger: “But this time, it’s really true!”
The folks at the top of the financial industry are quite clear: they want lower taxes on their income from capital gains, no changes to the favorable tax treatment of “carried interest”, and fewer regulations and restrictions on Wall Street in general. They want a pass on their past crimes, they want more money, and they want less accountability. So far, screaming about Invisible Bond Vigilantes has either gotten them what they want, or held off those who would make things (from their perspective) worse. As long as telling scary stories about Invisible Bond Vigilantes works, they’ll keep telling the stories.
Krugman’s policy and history lessons are, as they say in the wonk business, necessary but not sufficient to putting an end to these fictional fables. To put the Invisible Bond Vigilantes back under the bed with all the other monsters that haunt the dreams of impressionable children requires going after the fear.
The best weapon against irrational fears in the policy arena isn’t rationality — it’s mockery. A kindly parent may offer kindly mockery, by playing along with the delusion. When the child cries out at bedtime, “Mom! There are Invisible Bond Vigilantes under my bed!”, Mom swings into action. Wielding her invisible +5 Invisible Bond Vigilante Sword of Death, she stabs underneath the bed, pokes at the suspicious lumps under the blankets, and throws herself with shouts into the child’s closet. Suddenly, the screaming stops, a disheveled Mom emerges, and she solemnly declares to the frightened child that the battle is over and the victory has been won. Satisfied for the evening, the kid goes to sleep.
A less kindly approach is that of the schoolyard. Woe be unto that fourth grader who admits to the wrong classmate that they are tired because the monsters under the bed kept them up all night. “Hey Johnny! Lloyd still believes in monsters under the bed! What a baby!” The taunting on the playground, the laughing in the lunchroom, and the whispers in the classroom will be amazing.
Whether wieldly kindly or unkindly, mockery is what slays Invisible Bond Vigilantes.
Krugman’s general approach has been the former, but when it comes to reaching members of Congress, I think the latter will be the more effective approach. As the pressure for a Grand Bargain mounts and screaming about the Invisible Bond Vigilantes rises, someone needs to ask members of Congress a few questions. In addition to Invisible Bond Vigilantes, do they also believe in the Loch Ness monster? What about Bigfoot? How about the Abominable Snowman, Swamp Thing, and little green men on Mars who are coming to devour the Earth?
If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then the problem’s bigger than I thought and we’ll need bigger snark.
If you think that mockery won’t work, ask Todd Akin, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and Reince Prebius about legitimate rape. Just don’t expect them to laugh.
_______
Image h/t to Sierra Tierra and used under Creative Commons. Note that the caption is mine, not STs.




11 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
cherry-picked from Krugman top comments:
the bond-confidence trolls are like the benghazi benghazi benghazi nuts in gooperland and their siblings talking about obama being lazy, they have their own music in their heads and they are trying very hard — with some success — in getting that music to play to the general public.
as long as too few people push back on it, there will be some resonance to that particular right-wing dog whistle.
Mockery for the children in congress? Sounds right to me.
PS I live in a really red state (Indiana). I also meet regularly with a dozen or so old gents to spitball. I am outnumberd about 10 to 2. They all jumped on us this week about the debt and how we were going broke and running out of money. I asked them to explain it. And we were off. Bottom line, more than a few of them seemed to change their minds. Sweet.
Krugman’s spin on the deficit changes with the political winds. Here’s his 2003 deficit rant:
FROM: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/opinion/11KRUG.html
“… last week I switched to a fixed-rate mortgage. It means higher monthly payments, but I’m terrified about what will happen to interest rates once financial markets wake up to the implications of skyrocketing budget deficits….
Last week the Congressional Budget Office marked down its estimates yet again. Just two years ago, you may remember, the C.B.O. was projecting a 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Now it projects a 10-year deficit of $1.8 trillion.”
(Note the numbers: $1.8 trillion deficit over 10 years = $180 billion/year, and compare to current deficits)
Tell them we have a magic printing press in the back room. Got Government debt? no problem.
I think it is part of his education. The MMT guys have been hammering him on this for some time now. He is coming around. Not there yet, but getting close.
BTW with that magic printing press we have, the bond vigilantes are powerless. Just powerless whether or not our debt is downgraded.
great tool for slaying the rightwing military financial entertainment complex…and Sunday morning gasbag spin shows… msnbc re-airing Melissa Harris Perry and Up with Chris Hayes starting at 2 ET. yes, I know. It’s an early Christmas miracle.
Well “Long-term shareholders have lost 90 percent of their investment in Citigroup common stock in the past five years” but I bet you that dough is living large in Treasure Islands.
Remember there are oodles of bucks that are being held untaxed and that want to be “repatriated” without taxation.
knowledge and civility instead of vitriol and spin.
more, please.
In 1903 the US economy was starting to boom again, thanks to the housing bubble. In that context Krugman’s bet wasn’t all that dumb, and certainly had nothing to do with politics. How many of us thought buying 10-year treasuries then yielding a bit more than fpor percent would have been one of the steals of the century? 20-20 hindsight is always the best.
Book Salon up with Thomas Ricks’ The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today hosted by Susan Glasser