The professional left in America and their chattering-class useful idiots have followed a consistent pattern for a century: sympathizing with tyranny in their musings over how to implement policies fueled by jealousy and an undying fear of economic liberty.

Much of the discussion about the ultra-low interest rates seems to be based on an assumption that the only danger is a re-emergence of inflation, and as long as inflation is comfortably around the corner, then the low interest rate policy can persist indefinitely. But if the low-interest rate policy is promoting excessive leverage, tricky financial engineering, and a waning of due diligence in other assets, this set of risks also needs to be taken into account.

Would a farmer who put out a trough of slop be surprised if it attracted a bunch of pigs? Yet activists who promote ­enlarging the size and scope of government always seem to be shocked when one program after another is hijacked by corporations that find it easier to seek favors in Washington than ­customers in the marketplace. And, ­despite knowing that such corruption is inevitable, mainstream media consistently dismiss those who advocate ­curtailing government powers as ­cor­po­rate stooges.

The word “depression” frightens a lot of people. It should. But, we are in one now. Our leaders just invented the word “recession” to take our minds off what’s really happening. Murray Rothbard in his book, America’s Great Depression noted that when the economy crashed again in 1937, FDR and his advisers didn’t want to use the “D” word so they came up with “recession.” Until that time there were no “recessions.” Now a “recession” is just a mini-depression.

Is it macroeconomics? A contribution to macroeconomics? All I know is that it helps me think about political economy–the interface between politics, policy, and economic outcomes. I also know that it is profoundly discomfiting to mainstream macroeconomists to suggest that if not totally naked, their clothing is not the ermine of a true emperor. Was Hayek an important macroeconomist? I would argue that the macroeconomic skepticism of the later Hayek is more valuable than the macroeconomic theorizing of the early Hayek. But he wasn’t an important macroeconomist in the mainstream sense of the title. So what? That’s a badge of honor. He was merely a great economist, without any prefix. He helps me see things I wouldn’t otherwise see. That’s all that really counts.

As we have noted earlier, growth is going to slow in the world economy. America’s real estate market will be a drag for some time; European labor forces have started to age and shrink, and even China’s labor force growth is coming to an end. So the growth rates of the 1990s and 2000s — fueled by favorable demography, Chinese leaps forward, lower oil prices, and above all easy credit — are simply not coming back anytime soon.

I was born in 1927, so I have seen two of these calamities in 85 years. The long term lesson seems to be that the old fashioned virtues of working, saving, and living within your means are precious beyond gold and diamonds, and worthy of honoring because they were born out of human experience. The ‘new finance’ has done nothing to repeal those enduring hard-won principles of human conduct.

If you wouldn’t object to China sending products to the United States for free, then on what basis would you object to currency “manipulation” that allows you to purchase undervalued Chinese imports at a huge discount and great bargain?

Economics is organized common sense.