Thursday, May 11, 2017

SERIOUS PROBLEM: Trump Claims He Created the Phrase 'Priming the Pump

This is bizarre. During an interview with Economist, President Trump claimed that he created the phrase "priming the pump"

From the interview:
It’s very Keynesian.
We’re the highest-taxed nation in the world. Have you heard that expression before, for this particular type of an event?
Priming the pump?
Yeah, have you heard it?
Have you heard that expression used before? Because I haven’t heard it. I mean, I just… I came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good. It’s what you have to do.
For the record:

 Pump priming is considered the action taken to stimulate, from a Keynesian-type aggregate demand perspective, an economy through government spending, and interest rate and tax reductions. 

The term "pump priming" is derived from the operation of older pumps; a suction valve had to be primed with water so that the pump would function properly.

Note:  According to Investopedia, the phrase "pump priming" was originally used during the Herbert Hoover presidency:

The phrase originated with President Hoover's creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) in 1932, which was designed to make loans to banks and industry. This was taken one step further by 1933, when President Roosevelt felt that pump-priming would be the only way for the economy to recover from the Great Depression. Through the RFC and other public works organizations, billions of dollars were spent "priming the pump" to encourage economic growth.

The theory of it being necessary to stimulate aggregate demand in an economy has been shown faulty by

Austrian school economists. SEE:  The Failure of the New Economics by Henry Hazlitt,



Outside of economics, Merriam-Webster, in a tweet on Thursday, said the phrase dates to the early 1800s 


  1. Trump actually invented the pump. (Take that Al Gore!)

  2. Oh yeah, this is definitely the guy I want dictating national economic policy....

  3. Ha! Can't help but love Trump the public figure. I never met him, but just from reading his political articles and watching video of his lectures its evident Murray Rothbard would have loved watching this.

    1. Rothbard would have loved a blowhard in favor of tariffs and an increased military budget, with more military action overseas, who can't even repeal Obamacare?

      I don't think so.

    2. I said "Murray Rothbard would have loved watching this."

      And Rothbard said nice things about far worse politicians than Trump. Rothbard said he favored Lyndon Johnson over Barry Goldwater for instance. Rothbard wrote that he was going to vote for Johnson and that all libertarians should vote for Johnson!

  4. From a lawyerly standpoint, I would always put the burden of proof upon the statists and violent interventionists to prove the necessity of their proposed interventions. In criminal law, the state has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proof of their case being more likely than not.
    Everyone basically lives by the NAP in their private lives and understands my car, my bank account, my lawn, my yard and my body. They also understand honesty and keeping promises in contracts. Somehow, the same people seem to absorb by osmosis the idea that these various tasks must be performed by “government” without thinking about how doing those tasks violates the usual property and contractual honesty rules that they live by every day.

    As such, when dealing with statists and interventionists (here being the Keynesians), I would always demand that they identify the evidence or the historical event that leads them to claim that “the economy” has or lacks momentum or that the concept of “momentum” is even applicable to “the economy”. Absent the existence and subsequent lack of “momentum”, there is no basis for artificial government “stimulus”. Insist that they have the burden of proof to justify their interventions. From my experience, they will simply start calling you names at which point you can announce that you have won the argument.

    While the statists like to use terms like “prime the pump”, a better example of their vision would be helping a six year old ride a bike without the training wheels. Since “the economy” is nothing more than voluntary exchanges, there is no basis for the assumption that it requires or lacks momentum and the statists will not be able to justify their interventions when they have the burden of proof.

    1. Moreover, they never seem even the slightest bit curious as to *why* so-called "idle resources" are idle.

    2. More bizarre is that when you tell them that they haven't the slightest familiarity with even basic Austrian concepts or analysis, they NEVER say: "Oh yes I do! There's A, B, C, D (even if it were wrong).

      Here's a "sophisticated" and not unusual response:

      1. The deflation afflicting HDTVs is just killing me. Roddis

      The proper way to fight deflation beyond deficit spending for the general welfare by the monetary sovereign would be equal fiat distributions to all citizens, i.e. a citizen's dividend. That way, prices need not fall for all citizens to benefit from material progress.

      Btw, deflation is a known killer. Do you want a blood-stained HDTV or would you rather watch with a clear conscience that you aren't profiting off the misery of others?

      2. The fundamental Austrian concept is economic calculation. Roddis

      By measuring everything against a shiny metal? By limiting the growth of the money supply and thus the economy to the mining rate of gold? By destroying the environment to dig up gold only to rebury it in bank vaults?

      You're a tool of the banks, Roddis, unless you advocate that all citizens be allowed to use their Nation's fiat in account form and not be forced to work though private depositary institutions.

      Obfuscate? I'm not the one who says justice requires a silly metal. You have heard of idolatry, no?

      *Or do you blame the victims of the banks for not dying quietly in a corner somewhere rather than taking welfare?

  5. Next week it will be "I just turn the other cheek. You like that expression? I just made it up. I think it will catch on"

  6. "He would often make outrageous claims such as he invented the question mark..."