Don Boudreaux takes apart a foolish NYT piece by a Rutgers prof. Too bad that many academics make fools of themselves by pontificating on things they don’t understand.

Editor, The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018

Dear Editor:

James Livingston rightly proclaims "the moral worth of consumer culture" and 
correctly notes the trivial fact that increased savings do not automatically 
result in increased and widespread prosperity ("It’s Consumer Spending, Stupid," 
Oct. 26).  These points, however, are inadequate to support his astounding 
conclusion that economic growth is driven exclusively by consumer and government 
spending and that "[p]rivate investment isn't even necessary to promote growth."

Such a conclusion requires a potent argument.  But Prof. Livingston delivers 
only a storm of feeble anecdotes, post-hoc fallacies, and non sequiturs.

An example of the latter is his observation that "Between 1900 and 2000, real 
gross domestic product per capita (the output of goods and services per person) 
grew more than 600 percent.  Meanwhile, net business investment declined 70 
percent as a share of G.D.P."  Yep.  But this fact does not remotely mean that 
"net business investment atrophied" or that it plays no crucial role in economic 
growth.

Because each dollar successfully invested raises G.D.P. by multiple dollars, 
net-investment's decline AS A SHARE of G.D.P. (and not, please note, absolutely) 
is evidence of the impressive SUCCESS of private investment rather than of the 
proposition that economic growth requires only "[c]onsumer debt and government 
spending."

Sincerely, 
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University