Category Archive for: Fiscal Policy [Return to Main]

Friday, August 29, 2014

Paul Krugman: The Fall of France

Why didn't François Hollande reverse austerity policies in France?:

The Fall of France, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: François Hollande, the president of France since 2012, coulda been a contender. He was elected on a promise to turn away from the austerity policies that killed Europe’s brief, inadequate economic recovery... But it was not to be. Once in office, Mr. Hollande promptly folded, giving in completely to demands for even more austerity.
Let it not be said, however, that he is entirely spineless. Earlier this week, he took decisive action, but not, alas, on economic policy... Mr. Hollande ... was focused on purging members of his government daring to question his subservience to Berlin and Brussels.
It’s a remarkable spectacle. To fully appreciate it, however, you need to understand two things. First, Europe, as a whole, is in deep trouble. Second,... France’s performance is much better than you would guess from news reports. France isn’t Greece; it isn’t even Italy. But it is letting itself be bullied as if it were a basket case. ...
Why ... does France get such bad press? It’s hard to escape the suspicion that it’s political: France has a big government and a generous welfare state, which free-market ideology says should lead to economic disaster. So disaster is what gets reported, even if it’s not what the numbers say.
And Mr. Hollande, even though he leads France’s Socialist Party, appears to believe this ideologically motivated bad-mouthing. Worse, he has fallen into a vicious circle in which austerity policies cause growth to stall, and this stalled growth is taken as evidence that France needs even more austerity.
It’s a very sad story, and not just for France.
Most immediately, Europe’s economy is in dire straits. ... Meanwhile, Germany is incorrigible. Its official response to the shake-up in France was a declaration that “there is no contradiction between consolidation and growth” — hey, never mind the experience of the past four years, we still believe that austerity is expansionary.
So Europe desperately needs the leader of a major economy — one that is not in terrible shape — to stand up and say that austerity is killing the Continent’s economic prospects. Mr. Hollande could and should have been that leader, but he isn’t.
And if the European economy continues to stagnate or worse, what will become of the European project — the long-term effort to secure peace and democracy through shared prosperity? In failing France, Mr. Hollande is also failing Europe as a whole — and nobody knows how bad it might get.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Filling the Gap: Monetary Policy or Tax Cuts or Government Spending?

Simon Wren-Lewis (a bit technical):

Filling the gap: monetary policy or tax cuts or government spending: Suppose there is a shortfall in aggregate demand associated with a rise in involuntary unemployment in a simple closed economy with no capital. Do we try and raise private consumption (C) or government consumption (G)? If the former, why do we prefer to use monetary policy rather than tax cuts? ...

Monday, August 18, 2014

'Balanced-Budget Fundamentalism'

Simon Wren-Lewis:

Balanced-budget fundamentalism: Europeans, and particularly the European elite, find popular attitudes to science among many across the Atlantic both amusing and distressing. In Europe we do not have regular attempts to replace evolution with ‘intelligent design’ on school curriculums. Climate change denial is not mainstream politics in Europe as it is in the US (with the possible exception of the UK). Yet Europe, and particularly its governing elite, seems gripped by a belief that is as unscientific and more immediately dangerous. It is a belief that fiscal policy should be tightened in a liquidity trap. In the UK economic growth is currently strong, but that cannot disguise the fact that this has been the slowest recovery from a recession for centuries. Austerity may not be the main cause of that, but it certainly played its part. Yet the government that undertook this austerity, instead of trying to distract attention from its mistake, is planning to do it all over again. Either this is a serious intention, or a ruse to help win an election, but either way it suggests events have not dulled its faith in this doctrine. ...

Sunday, August 17, 2014

'The Treasury and the Fed are at Loggerheads'

Roger Farmer:

...How successful was operation twist at changing the maturity structure of Treasury securities held by the public? ...I break down Treasuries held by the public as a fraction of total debt outstanding. This ... shows that although the Fed switched its holdings from yields of three months to two years to yields in the two to ten year range (Figure 3) this operation was swamped, after November of 2008, by Treasury operations that increased the supply of maturities in the two to ten year range (Figure 4).  The end result was that the public ended up holding more of these two to ten year bonds in 2010 than before the recession hit.
Could we have a little coordination here guys?

Friday, August 15, 2014

Paul Krugman: The Forever Slump

The risks from tightening policy too soon are much greater than the risks from leaving policy in place too long:

The Forever Slump, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: It’s hard to believe, but almost six years have passed since the fall of Lehman Brothers ushered in the worst economic crisis since the 1930s. ... Recovery is far from complete, and the wrong policies could still turn economic weakness into a more or less permanent depression.
In fact, that’s what seems to be happening in Europe as we speak. And the rest of us should learn from Europe’s experience. ...
European officials eagerly embraced now-discredited doctrines that allegedly justified fiscal austerity even in depressed economies (although America has de facto done a lot of austerity, too, thanks to the sequester and cuts at the state and local level). And the European Central Bank, or E.C.B., not only failed to match the Fed’s asset purchases, it actually raised interest rates back in 2011 to head off the imaginary risk of inflation.
The E.C.B. reversed course when Europe slid back into recession, and, as I’ve already mentioned, under Mario Draghi’s leadership, it did a lot to alleviate the European debt crisis. But this wasn’t enough. ...
And now growth has stalled, while inflation has fallen far below the E.C.B.’s target of 2 percent, and prices are actually falling in debtor nations. It’s really a dismal picture. ... Europe will arguably be lucky if all it experiences is one lost decade.
The good news is that things don’t look that dire in America, where job creation seems finally to have picked up and the threat of deflation has receded, at least for now. But all it would take is a few bad shocks and/or policy missteps to send us down the same path.
The good news is that Janet Yellen, the Fed chairwoman, understands the danger; she has made it clear that she would rather take the chance of a temporary rise in the inflation rate than risk hitting the brakes too soon, the way the E.C.B. did in 2011. The bad news is that she and her colleagues are under a lot of pressure to do the wrong thing from [those] who seem to have learned nothing from being wrong year after year, and are still agitating for higher rates.
There’s an old joke about the man who decides to cheer up, because things could be worse — and sure enough, things get worse. That’s more or less what happened to Europe, and we shouldn’t let it happen here.

Tuesday, August 05, 2014

'Republican Craziness Is Undermining the South’s Massive Keynesian Stimulus'

Ha:

Someone needs to tell Republicans that you’re not actually supposed to govern according to the rhetoric used to gull the rubes.

More here.

Monday, August 04, 2014

'How Austerity Wrecked the Recovery'

Kevin Drum picks this as his "Chart of the Day" (it's from Calculated Risk):

PublicJuly2014

He remarks:

...after every previous recession of the past 40 years, the subsequent recovery was helped along by increased government outlays. In the 2007-08 recession—and only in this recession—the recovery was deliberately hobbled by insisting on declining government outlays. This is despite the fact that it was the worst recession of the bunch.

The result, of course, was that there was no Obama Miracle in 2011. In fact, there was barely even an Obama Recovery. If you think that's just a coincidence, I have a bridge to sell you.

Friday, July 04, 2014

Paul Krugman: Build We Won’t

Why has public investment collapsed?:

Build We Won’t, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: You often find people talking about our economic difficulties as if they were complicated and mysterious, with no obvious solution. ... The basic story of what went wrong is, in fact, almost absurdly simple: We had an immense housing bubble, and, when the bubble burst, it left a huge hole in spending. Everything else is footnotes.
And the appropriate policy response was simple, too: Fill that hole in demand. In particular, the aftermath of the bursting bubble was (and still is) a very good time to invest in infrastructure. ... Since 2008,... our economy has been awash in unemployed workers ... and capital with no place to go (which is why government borrowing costs are at historic lows). Putting those idle resources to work building useful stuff should have been a no-brainer.
But what actually happened was exactly the opposite: an unprecedented plunge in infrastructure spending. ... In policy terms, this represents an almost surreally awful wrong turn; we’ve managed to weaken the economy in the short run even as we undermine its prospects for the long run. Well played!
And it’s about to get even worse. The federal highway trust fund ... is almost exhausted. Unless Congress agrees to top up the fund..., road work all across the country will have to be scaled back just a few weeks from now. If this were to happen, it would quickly cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs, which might derail the employment recovery that finally seems to be gaining steam. And it would also reduce long-run economic potential.
How did things go so wrong? As with so many of our problems, the answer is the combined effect of rigid ideology and scorched-earth political tactics. The highway fund crisis is just one example of a much broader problem. ... The collapse of public investment was ... a political choice.
What’s useful about the looming highway crisis is that it illustrates just how self-destructive that political choice has become. It’s one thing to block green investment, or high-speed rail, or even school construction. I’m for such things, but many on the right aren’t. But everyone from progressive think tanks to the United States Chamber of Commerce thinks we need good roads. Yet the combination of anti-tax ideology and deficit hysteria (itself mostly whipped up in an attempt to bully President Obama into spending cuts) means that we’re letting our highways, and our future, erode away.

Thursday, June 26, 2014

'The Enormous Wage Potential of Infrastructure Jobs'

Even after years of "recovery" it's not too late t help those struggling to find employment, and to improve our future potential for growth at the same time. Of course, that would require Congress -- particularly those on the political right -- to actually care about the unemployed, and to recognize the critical role that government (and taxes) must play in meeting our infrastructure needs:

The Enormous Wage Potential of Infrastructure Jobs, by Joseph Kane and Robert Puentes, Brookings: This month marks five years since the U.S. economic recovery began, but we clearly have a long way to go to address our nation’s jobs deficit. Even though more workers are gradually finding employment, their wages continue to stagnate and hold back widespread economic growth. ...
Cutting across multiple industries and geographies, infrastructure jobs offer needed stability. Since these jobs also typically require less formal education and pay competitive wages across a variety of occupations, they give workers from all backgrounds a chance to make a decent living in today’s unforgiving economy.
As our recent report reveals, infrastructure jobs tend to pay 30 percent more to lower income workers—wage earners at the 10th and 25th percentile—relative to all jobs nationally...
Infrastructure occupations not only employ thousands of workers with a high school diploma or less, but they also frequently offer higher wages compared to many other jobs, particularly those involved in sales, maintenance, production, and other support activities. ...
Over time, by forging stronger connections between our infrastructure investments and workforce needs, we can help boost the long-term opportunity available to American workers.

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

'That Big Negative Q1 GDP Revision'

Jared Bernstein:

Whoa! Whassup With That Big Negative Q1 GDP Revision?: Yes, you read those headlines right: real GDP contracted at a 2.9% rate according to revised data released this AM. That’s contracted, as in went down.
So, are we, like, back in recession (granting that a lot of people think we never left)?
Nope. That was a truly lousy quarter but it’s highly unlikely to be repeated any time soon. The particularly bad winter weather played a role; both residential and commercial building were negative. Heavy inventory buildups in earlier quarters were reversed, which usually implies a positive bounce-back in coming quarters. Exports were revised down and imports up, so the trade deficit subtracted a large 1.5 points from the bottom line; that drag will likely diminish in coming quarters.
Health care spending, a strong contributor in earlier estimates of Q1 growth, went from contributing 1 percentage point to growth in an earlier vintage of Q1 GDP to subtracting 0.16 points in this update, suggesting earlier estimates of the pace of increased coverage were overstated. That doesn’t mean they’re not happening; it just means they’ll be spread out over more quarters. [Update: check that--a colleague tells me that what's really happening here is that people didn't use as many services as first thought. I'll try to look further into this.] ...
Year-over-year—a good way to squeeze out some quarterly noise—real GDP is up 1.5%. That’s better than the headline number, but it too is actually a weak number. The trend over the last two years is 2.1% growth... I don’t believe today’s revisions really signal a decline in that trend rate and most analysts expect coming quarters to clock in at 2.5-3%. ...

I still think that policymakers should revise their priors (downward), particularly given their tendency to brush off any bad news as temporary changes that will surely be reversed in coming quarters.

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

The Effectiveness of Tax Rebates as Countercyclical Fiscal Policy

Tax rebates increase demand:

Governments around the world are searching for macro-stimulation instruments. This column discusses evidence showing that rebate-type payments policies generate substantial increases in demand for goods and services. In particular, a large portion of tax rebates are spent rapidly on arrival.

Full post here: The effectiveness of tax rebates as countercyclical fiscal policy, by Jonathan A. Parker, Vox EU.

Thursday, June 12, 2014

'The Social Impact of Fiscal Policy Responses to Crises'

Contractionary fiscal policy in recessions is contractionary (contrary to those who advocate "expansionary austerity). It also worsens social indicators (though for some undermining the social safety net is one of the goals of austerity):

The social impact of fiscal policy responses to crises, by Carlos A. Vegh and Guillermo Vuletin, Vox EU: Fiscal policy in many developing countries is typically procyclical. Expansionary in good times and contractionary in bad times, these policies often amplify business cycles. The most convincing explanations for such practices seem to be limited access to international credit markets during bad times and political pressures that tend to encourage too much public spending during boom periods (Calderon and Schmidt-Hebbel 2008). Whatever the reason, the pattern is well documented (see Frankel, Vegh, and Vuletin 2011 on the spending side and Vegh and Vuletin 2013a on the tax side). In particular, contractionary fiscal policy in bad times seems to have increased the severity and duration of crises (Vegh and Vuletin 2013b).

Ironically, the procyclicality of fiscal policy has also become a hotly debated issue in the context of the current crises in Europe, with influential economists such as Olivier Blanchard (IMF Chief Economist) arguing that fiscal multipliers in the Eurozone have been underestimated by the IMF and others and thus that the contractionary effects of fiscal austerity have been considerably higher than typically believed (Blanchard and Leigh 2013).

Counting the social impact

Lost in much of the discussion on fiscal-policy procyclicality has been the social impact of contractionary fiscal policy during recessions – things such as:

  • the poverty rate,
  • income inequality,
  • the unemployment rate, and
  • domestic conflict.

In a recent research paper we look at how the fiscal-policy responses to GDP crises have affected social indicators such as those listed above (Vegh and Vuletin 2014). We find that contractionary fiscal policy during crises has tended to worsen social indicators both in Latin America and, more recently, in the Eurozone, which calls into question recent claims on ‘expansionary fiscal austerity.’ ...

Policy conclusions

While many Latin American countries have ‘graduated’ from procyclical to countercyclical fiscal responses to GDP crises, many industrial economies (like Greece, Ireland, Italy, and Portugal) followed contractionary fiscal policies in the aftermath of the Global Crisis. Our work finds that countercyclical fiscal policies tend to soften the undesirable effects of GDP crises on social indicators such as poverty, income inequality, unemployment, and domestic conflict. On the other hand, austerity policies tend to worsen all of these social indicators.

This evidence supports the desirability of pursuing expansionary fiscal policies in times of distress – which may mean postponing for some time needed structural fiscal adjustment – rather than embarking on fiscal austerity in the midst of a recession. ...

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

The FT is on a Roll. Not.

Kevin O'Rourke:

The FT is on a roll: In an otherwise unremarkable editorial about the upshot of the elections, the FT comes up with this quite remarkable statement:

The only viable path for France is to press ahead with tax cuts and spending reductions that can sustain growth.

Is the FT really saying that in a Keynesian short run, such as we find ourselves in just now, the balanced budget multiplier is negative? Really? Or that the spending multiplier is negative? Or is it perhaps denying that the Eurozone currently finds itself in such a Keynesian short run, in which a lack of demand is the key constraint on growth? (Let’s not even get into the debate about the long run relationship between growth and the size of the state in Europe, although I can’t help writing down one word: Scandinavia.)

And is the FT really claiming that continuing with this programme would make all those FN voters switch to the socialists and UMP?

Really?

Sunday, May 18, 2014

"I'm with Brad"

Jared Bernstein:

Diagnoses and Prescriptions: The Great Recession: There’s a very interesting, albeit down-in-the-weeds, analytic debate brewing around a confluence of recent publications. Tim Geithner’s new book defends the interventions of the Treasury department he led to reflate credit markets (and I worked with the team on this back then). Mian and Sufi’s new book ... argues that Treasury got it wrong by not recognizing the extent to which debt burdens were restricting growth and intervening in ways to write off more debt...
Dean Baker has long argued the problem was not just the debt overhang but the wealth effect’s sharp shift into reverse when the housing bubble burst. That’s similar to Main/Sufi except it implies that even had you forgiven the debt, consumption still would have tanked. Brad DeLong articulates an “all-of-the-above” theory, suggesting each of these analyses gets at one part of the problem but you need all of them to understand what happened.
Here’s what I think..., you have to do everything you can to get the system back up. You have to reflate the credit system through both liquidity (as in the TARP) as well as Mian/Sufi-style principal reductions and cramdowns of mortgage debt that cannot realistically be serviced without sustained pain. The administration did a lot of the former and little (not none) of the latter. ...
Dean’s point means that debt forgiveness and revived credit flows must be met with deep fiscal stimulus that lasts as long as needed. ... With the private sector still licking its wounds, absent committed stimulus there’s no reason to expect deleveraging, or even aggressive monetary policy, to trigger the growth needed to reach escape velocity. ...
So I’m with Brad—all of the above. And let’s keep it real: the problem was not only that we didn’t do all of the above. It’s that even when we did the right things, we didn’t stick with them long enough. The important thing is to try to learn from our mistakes, and I for one am thankful to all of these authors for continuing to plumb these deep waters. ...

Saturday, May 17, 2014

'You Don’t Have to Fill a Tire Through the Leak'

Brad DeLong:

Reviewing Ryan Avent’s Review of Amir Sufi and Atif Mian’s House of Debt, by Brad DeLong:  ... Mian and Sufi do an excellent job of documenting the size of the negative shock to spending from the household sector via the housing equity-underwater mortgage-wealth channel–and in the process do, I think, successfully demolish Tim Geithner’s claims in his Stress Test that aggressively refinancing mortgages would not have materially helped the economy. ...
As Larry Summers, Paul Krugman, Joe Stiglitz, and Laura Tyson all like to say: you don’t have to fill a tire through the leak. restoring consumer spending via successfully rewriting mortgage contracts to rebalance household balance sheets would have been a wonderful thing to do. It would still be a wonderful thing to do. But it was and is not the only thing to do to get us out of our current mess. ...
I thought–from the Great Depression era history of the HOLC and the RFC, from the 1980s history of the Latin American debt crisis, from the 1990s history of the RTC, from innumerable emerging-market crises, et cetera, that we understood very well that this is what we should do. Whenever the financial system got sufficiently wedged we resolved it–we turned debt into equity, and we crammed losses down onto debt holders whose investments were ex post judged to have been ex ante unwise.
And from my standpoint the true puzzle is why Bernanke, Geithner, and Obama were so uninterested in pulling out the Walter Bagehot-Hyman Minsky-Charlie Kindleberger playbook and following it in housing finance from 2009-2014. Did they read no history? ...

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

'Asymmetric Misinformation'

Paul Krugman:

Asymmetric Misinformation: A follow-up to my post about Jaime Caruana at the BIS. One other thing that struck me was his claim that

policymakers respond asymmetrically over successive business and financial cycles, hardly tightening or even easing during booms and easing aggressively and persistently during busts

Is this true? Anyway, is symmetry in policy responses inherently desirable?

The claim that policymakers have an easy-money bias is one of those things usually said with an air of worldy wisdom; of course people don’t want to take away the punchbowl when everyone is having fun. But the reality doesn’t look at all like that. After all, if policy were consistently doing too much to fight slumps and not enough to curb booms, what you would expect is a steady ratcheting up of inflation — which isn’t at all what has happened over the past 35 years. This supposed piece of wisdom is actually a cliche from the 1970s, which hasn’t been remotely true for a generation. ...

Incidentally, the fake wisdom on monetary policy resembles a corresponding piece of fake wisdom on fiscal policy — the claim that fiscal stimulus inevitably turns into a permanent rise in government spending, because the programs never go away. That didn’t happen this time... And in fact it has never happened in the United States, as far as I can tell...

Beyond that, there are in fact good reasons for asymmetry in the response to booms and slumps...

He goes on to explain why. I'd add another reason why "symmetry is not a virtue," the difference in costs between inflation and unemployment. I believe that the costs of unemployment are much higher than the costs of inflation running a point or two (or three of four) above target, so if there is a mistake to be made, it's best to err on doing too much in a recession.

Saturday, May 10, 2014

'Wrong Debates'

Gloomy European Economist Francesco Saraceno:

Wrong Debates: Paul Krugman has a short post on the Eurozone, today (I’d like him to write more about us; he has been too America-centered lately), pointing out that the myth of fiscal profligacy is, well, just a myth. in fact, he argues, the only fiscally irresponsible country, in the years 2000 was Greece. It is maybe worth reposting here a figure that from an old piece of this blog, that since then made it into all my classes on the Euro crisis: 

Fig1postmarch161

The figure shows the situation of public finances in 2007, against the Maastricht benchmark (3% deficit and 60% debt) before the crisis hit. As Krugman says, only one country of the so-called PIIGS  (the red dots) is clearly out of line, Greece. Portugal is virtually like France, and Spain and Ireland way better than most countries, including Germany. Italy has a stock of old debt, but its deficit in 2007 is under control.
So Krugman is right in reminding us that fiscal policy per se was not a problem before the crisis; And yet, what he calls fiscal myths, have shaped policies in the EMU, with a disproportionate emphasis on austerity. And even today,... continued fiscal consolidation is taken for granted. I will write more on this in the next days, but it is striking how we aim at the wrong target.

Friday, May 09, 2014

Why Do Economists Still Disagree over Government Spending Multipliers?

Daniel Carroll:

Why Do Economists Still Disagree over Government Spending Multipliers?, by Daniel Carroll, Commentary, Cleveland Fed:  Public debate about the effects of government spending heated up after record-large stimulus packages were enacted to address the fallout of the financial crisis. Almost as noticeable as the discord was the absence of consensus among prominent economists on the issue. While it seems a simple problem to estimate the effect of government spending on output—the size of the government multiplier—it is anything but.

Paper here.

Wednesday, May 07, 2014

Tax Miles?

Tim Haab at Environmental Economics:

Tax Miles? I still think I have a better idea...:

The California Legislature is looking at a voluntary program that would tax motorists for every mile they drive.

KCAL9’s Bobby Kaple reports that Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, introduced a bill to test out the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax because the state’s gas tax was no longer bringing in the revenue it used to due to people driving more fuel efficient vehicles. [via losangeles.cbslocal.com]

It's been almost exactly 7 years now (May 8, 2007) and people still aren't listening to me. 

Taxing miles creates perverse incentives for fuel efficiency. ...  In words, a mielage tax increases the tax per gallon the more fuel efficient the car.  Now granted, with higher mpg you use fewer gallons to drive an equivalent number of miles, and in the end, everyone driving 100 miles will pay the same tax.  And from a revenue perspective, that might be OK.  But there might be a way to kill fewer birds with one stone.

As I have written a number of times, a more straightforward proposal is to simply raise the gas tax.  Reaising the gas tax accomplishes a number of things 1) It raises revenue, 2) It discourages miles driven, and 3) It increases the incentive for higher fuel efficiency. ...

It's really simple.  Why worry about complicated milage programs?  The gas tax infrastructure is in place.  Raise the gas tax and meet multiple public policy and economic goals simultaneously.

Monday, May 05, 2014

'Britain’s Economic Growth is Not a Sign that Austerity Works'

Larry Summers:

Britain’s economic growth is not a sign that austerity works, by Lawrence Summers, Commentary, Washington Post: The British economy has experienced the most rapid growth in the Group of 7 over the past several months. ... Naturally enough, many have seized on Britain’s strong performance as evidence vindicating the austerity strategy that the country has followed since 2010 and rejecting the secular-stagnation idea that lack of demand constrains industrial growth over the medium term. ... Unfortunately, properly interpreted, the British experience refutes austerity advocates and confirms Keynes’s warning about the dangers of indiscriminate budget-cutting in the midst of a downturn. ...
Britain’s growth reflects a combination of the depth of the hole it found itself in, the moderation in the trend toward deeper and deeper austerity and the effects of possibly bubble-creating government loans. It may be better for the citizens of Britain than any alternative. But it certainly should not be seen as any kind of inspiration for other companies or countries. ...

Saturday, May 03, 2014

'Pareto, Inequality and Government Debt'

Simon Wren-Lewis:

Pareto, Inequality and Government Debt: Or is economics inherently right wing?
I noted in passing in an earlier post that Pareto efficiency was obviously not a value free criteria. So those who argue that economists should only look for Pareto improvements – changes where no one is made worse off – are making a value judgement. One, and only one, of its implicit normative assumptions is that inequality does not matter. For others see, for example, Elizabeth Anderson (pdf, HT Anon). ...
The only possibly original point I wanted to make here is that the absurdity of restricting policies to Pareto improvements becomes immediately apparent if we think about government debt. Measures to reduce currently high levels of debt will almost certainly make current generations worse off, because they will have to pay the taxes (or whatever) to get debt down. Yet I do not often hear people arguing that we have to let debt stay high because the government can only implement Pareto improvements. ...
Why is there this emphasis on only looking at Pareto improvements? I think you would have to work quite hard to argue that it was intrinsic to economic theory - it would be, and is, quite possible to do economics without it. (Many economists use social welfare functions.) But one thing that is intrinsic to economic theory is the diminishing marginal utility of consumption. Couple that with the idea of representative agents that macro uses all the time (who share the same preferences), and you have a natural bias towards equality. Focusing just on Pareto improvements neutralises that possibility. Now I mention this not to imply that the emphasis put on Pareto improvements in textbooks and elsewhere is a right wing plot - I do not know enough to argue that. But it should make those (mainstream or heterodox) who believe that economics is inherently conservative pause for thought.

[There is quite a bit more detail in the original.]

Friday, May 02, 2014

Paul Krugman: Why Economics Failed

Why didn't fiscal policy makers listen to economists?:

Why Economics Failed, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: On Wednesday, I wrapped up the class I’ve been teaching..: “The Great Recession: Causes and Consequences.” ...I found myself turning at the end to an agonizing question: Why, at the moment it was most needed and could have done the most good, did economics fail?
I don’t mean that economics was useless to policy makers. ... While ... few economists saw the crisis coming..., since the fall of Lehman Brothers, basic textbook macroeconomics has performed very well. ...
In what sense did economics work well? Economists who took their own textbooks seriously quickly diagnosed the nature of our economic malaise: We were suffering from inadequate demand ... and a depressed economy. ...
And the diagnosis ... had clear policy implications: ...this was no time to worry about budget deficits and cut spending... We needed more government spending, not less, to fill the hole left by inadequate private demand. But... Since 2010, we’ve seen a sharp decline in discretionary spending and an unprecedented decline in budget deficits, and the result has been anemic growth and long-term unemployment on a scale not seen since the 1930s.
So why didn’t we use the economic knowledge we had?
One answer is that most people find the logic of policy in a depressed economy counterintuitive. ... And even supposedly well-informed people balk at the notion that simple lack of demand can wreak so much havoc. Surely, they insist, we must have deep structural problems, like a work force that lacks the right skills; that sounds serious and wise, even though all the evidence says that it’s completely untrue.
Meanwhile, powerful political factions ... whose real goal is dismantling the social safety net have found promoting deficit panic an effective way to push their agenda. And such people have been aided and abetted by what I’ve come to think of as the trahison des nerds — the willingness of some economists to come up with analyses that tell powerful people what they want to hear, whether it’s that slashing government spending is actually expansionary, because of confidence, or that government debt somehow has dire effects on economic growth even if interest rates stay low.
Whatever the reasons basic economics got tossed aside, the result has been tragic. ... We have, all along, had the knowledge and the tools to restore full employment. But policy makers just keep finding reasons not to do the right thing.

Thursday, April 24, 2014

'Gasoline Tax, Unchanged Since 1993, is Due for an Increase'

Barry Ritholtz:

U.S. on Highway to Flunking Out, by Barry Ritholtz: Roads are crumbling, bridges are collapsing, and what was once considered one of the greatest achievements of any government anywhere has fallen into embarrassing disrepair. I am of course discussing our nation’s infrastructure. ... How did this happen? Credit a combination of benign neglect and anti-tax ideology run amok. ...
Since 1993, the U.S. federal gasoline tax has been 18.4 cents a gallon, which finances the Highway Trust Fund. Adjusted for inflation, the tax is now about 10 cents a gallon. ...
The U.S. interstate highway system, once the envy of the world, is in mediocre and deteriorating condition today ... putting the U.S at a competitive disadvantage. ...
The solution is simple. Raise the federal gasoline tax five cents a year for the next five years. Index it to inflation starting in the fifth year. It's the least the U.S. can do to keep up.

Thursday, April 03, 2014

The Downward Drift in Real Interest Rates

David Wessel reports on the IMF's World Economic Outlook:

The Downward Drift in Inflation-Adjusted Interest Rates: Why? And So What?, by David Wessel, WSJ:

Real-rates

...Two economists writing in the International Monetary Fund’s new World Economic Outlook note that inflation-adjusted interest rates have been coming down for more than three decades and suggests they may remain lower than normal for a very long time. ... But the important point is the trend towards lower interest rates began long before the Great Recession and advent of the Fed’s quantitative easing...
Why does this matter? ... It also would pose a big challenge for the Fed. For one thing, it boosts the risk that investors will do foolish things to get a little extra yield and provoke the much-dreaded “financial instability.”
It also increases the likelihood the economy will spend a whole lot more time with nominal rates ... uncomfortably close to zero, where it’s much harder for a central bank to use interest rates to steer the economy out of recessions.  ...
If so, that argues ... for worrying a lot less about government budget deficits and a lot more about using government spending to give the economy a lift that monetary policy cannot provide. ...

And at the same time, "Governments Scale Back Spending on School Construction, Public Safety."

Friday, March 21, 2014

'The Counter-Factual & the Fed’s QE'

I tried to make this point in a recent column (it was about fiscal rather than monetary policy, but the same point applies), but I think Barry Ritholtz makes the point better and more succinctly:

Understanding Why You Think QE Didn't Work, by Barry Ritholtz: Maybe you have heard a line that goes something like this: The weak recovery is proof that the Federal Reserve’s program of asset purchases, otherwise known as quantitative easement, doesn't work.
If you were the one saying those words, you don't understand the counterfactual. ...
This flawed analytical paradigm has many manifestations, and not just in the investing world. They all rely on the same equation: If you do X, and there is no measurable change, X is therefore ineffective.
The problem with this “non-result result” is what would have occurred otherwise. Might “no change” be an improvement from what otherwise would have happened? No change, last time I checked, is better than a free-fall.
If you are testing a new medication to reduce tumors, you want to see what happened to the group that didn't get the test therapy. Maybe this control group experienced rapid tumor growth. Hence, a result where there is no increase in tumor mass in the group receiving the therapy would be considered a very positive outcome.
We run into the same issue with QE. ... Without that control group, we simply don't know. ...

The Fool on the Icy Hill

As a follow-up to Krugman's article, this is something I wrote in January of 2009:

...I think the stimulus package is like driving up an icy hill. If you don't have enough momentum from the start and fail to provide enough "stimulus" to get the car over the crest of the hill, you can slide all the way back to the bottom, crashing into things along the way and ending up worse off than when you started. Maybe you can give it more gas along the way if needed without spinning out, and perhaps you can hold your position if you don't make it to the top, and then start again from the higher level, but that's not a chance I want to take when I'm sitting at the bottom wondering if I can make it to the top without wrecking my car -- the possibility of falling all the way back to the bottom and ending up worse off would make me want to start with sufficient momentum and then some. Essentially, I am arguing that there are crucial economic and psychological "tipping points" that must be reached in order for the economic recovery package to be effective (or at least, there's enough of a chance that they exist that they cannot be ignored when formulating robust policy). ...

Paul Krugman added:

I’d add that there may also be a political tipping point: if the stimulus package is too weak, conservatives will pile on after it fails to deliver, claiming that the whole concept has been discredited.

Paul Krugman: The Timidity Trap

When policymakers are overly cautious, it can backfire:

The Timidity Trap, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: There don’t seem to be any major economic crises underway right this moment, and policy makers in many places are patting themselves on the back. ...
Unfortunately, that ... just goes to show how accustomed we’ve grown to terrible economic conditions. We’re doing worse than anyone could have imagined a few years ago, yet people seem increasingly to be accepting this miserable situation as the new normal.
How did this happen? ... I’d argue that an important source of failure was what I’ve taken to calling the timidity trap — the consistent tendency of policy makers who have the right ideas in principle to go for half-measures in practice, and the way this timidity ends up backfiring, politically and even economically.
In other words, Yeats had it right: the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
About the worst: If you’ve been following economic debates these past few years, you know that both America and Europe have powerful pain caucuses — influential groups fiercely opposed to any policy that might put the unemployed back to work. There are some important differences between the U.S. and European pain caucuses, but both now have truly impressive track records of being always wrong, never in doubt. ...
So what has been the response of the good guys?
For there are good guys out there... But these good guys never seem willing to go all-in on their beliefs.
The classic example is the Obama stimulus, which was obviously underpowered... Some of us warned right from the beginning that the plan would be inadequate — and that because it was being oversold, the persistence of high unemployment would end up discrediting the whole idea of stimulus in the public mind. And so it proved.
What’s not as well known is that the Fed has, in its own way, done the same thing. From the start, monetary officials ruled out the kinds of monetary policies most likely to work — in particular, anything that might signal a willingness to tolerate somewhat higher inflation, at least temporarily. As a result, the policies ... have fallen short of hopes, and ended up leaving the impression that nothing much can be done. ...
You might ask why the good guys have been so timid, the bad guys so self-confident. I suspect that the answer has a lot to do with class interests. But that will have to be a subject for another column.

Thursday, March 20, 2014

Turning Their Backs on the Unemployed

The Fed:

Fiscal policy is restraining economic growth

Congress, implicitly:

We don't care

Maximizing the fortunes of the wealthy backers of political campaigns -- e.g. cutting their taxes so they don't have to pay for programs that help "those people" after the financial wizards on Wall Street cause the economy to crash -- is not the same as maximizing economic growth and employment. The wealthy think it's the same -- in their minds they are the job creators, what's good for the wealthy is good for America! -- but it's not.

Thursday, February 27, 2014

The Obama Stimulus

Jeff Frankel says the stimulus worked:

Guest Contribution: “The Obama Stimulus and the 5-Year Anniversary of Market Turnaround”, econbrowser: Commentators are taking note of the five-year anniversary of the fiscal stimulus that President Obama enacted during his first month in office. Those who don’t like Obama are still asking “if the fiscal stimulus was so great, why didn’t it work?” ... Listening to these arguments, one would think that no effect of the Obama stimulus could be seen by the naked eye in the U.S. economic statistics of 2009. Nothing could be further from the truth. ...
If one judges by the economic statistics, the effect could not have been much more immediate, whether one looks at job loss, GDP, or financial market indicators. Look at the graphs below. ...
Of course there are always a lot of things going on. One cannot say for sure what was the effect of the Obama stimulus. And one can debate why the pace of the expansion slowed after 2010 (my own prime culprit is the switch to fiscal austerity). But whether looking at indicators of economic activity, the labor market, or the financial markets, one cannot say that the fiscal stimulus of February 2009 had no apparent impact in the graphs.

Friday, February 21, 2014

Paul Krugman: The Stimulus Tragedy

The stimulus package was more effective than people realize:

The Stimulus Tragedy, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Five years have passed since President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — the “stimulus” — into law. With the passage of time, it has become clear that the act did a vast amount of good. It helped end the economy’s plunge; it created or saved millions of jobs; it left behind an important legacy of public and private investment.
It was also a political disaster. And the consequences of that political disaster — the perception that stimulus failed — have haunted economic policy ever since.
Let’s start with the good stimulus did..., most careful studies have found evidence of strong positive effects on employment and output.
Even more important, I’d argue, is the huge natural experiment Europe has provided... You see,... austerity led to nasty, in some cases catastrophic, declines in output and employment. And private spending in countries imposing harsh austerity ended up falling..., amplifying the direct effects of government cutbacks.
All the evidence, then, points to substantial positive short-run effects from the Obama stimulus. And there were surely long-term benefits, too: big investments in everything from green energy to electronic medical records.
So why does everyone ... except those who have seriously studied the issue ... believe that the stimulus was a failure? Because the U.S. economy continued to perform poorly — not disastrously, but poorly — after the stimulus went into effect.
There’s no mystery about why: America was coping with the legacy of a giant housing bubble. ... And the stimulus was both too small and too short-lived...
There’s a long-running debate over whether the Obama administration could have gotten more. The administration compounded the damage with excessively optimistic forecasts, based on the false premise that the economy would quickly bounce back...
But that’s all water under the bridge. The important point is that U.S. fiscal policy went completely in the wrong direction after 2010. With the stimulus perceived as a failure, job creation almost disappeared from inside-the-Beltway discourse, replaced with obsessive concern over budget deficits. Government spending, which had been temporarily boosted both by the Recovery Act and by safety-net programs like food stamps and unemployment benefits, began falling... And this anti-stimulus has destroyed millions of jobs.
In other words, the overall narrative of the stimulus is tragic. A policy initiative that was good but not good enough ended up being seen as a failure, and set the stage for an immensely destructive wrong turn.

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

'Forget the Minimum-Wage Job Losses: It's Government Cuts That'll GetYou Mad'

Heidi Moore:

Forget the minimum-wage job losses: it's government cuts that'll get you mad, by Heidi Moore: ...Which is worse: 500,000 Americans out of work, or 2m?... 500,000 is an estimate of the number of jobs the country might lose if the minimum wage gets raised to $10.10 an hour, according to a controversial analysis released Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office. ...
What about those 2m jobs? That’s how much the economy will lose by 2019 because of federal budget cuts, as estimated by the Center for American Progress. And, well, I hate to break it to you, but Congress already voted on those last year, and it didn’t spur one fired shot.
Budget cuts, also known as austerity, are the most damaging economic decision Congress has made since the financial crisis. Former Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke warned lawmakers several times that austerity measures would hurt the economy, but they largely ignored his warnings. Jobs lost to government budget cuts are part of the reason why the economy still looks so weak...
The cost of austerity doesn’t stop at 2m jobs, either. There could be as many as 7 million jobs that are never even created because of Washington budget cuts, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Those 7 million jobs would be the difference between the unhappy economy we have now ... and an actual recovery.
So, here’s the not-so-simple question: if everyone’s so angry about losing 500,000 jobs while paying the average worker more per hour, where’s the unstoppable outrage about the 2m jobs that already seem lost to austerity? ...

Monday, February 17, 2014

The Stimulus Success

Calculated Risk (aka Bill McBride):

The Stimulus Success: It is important for the future to set aside ideology and recognize that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 helped the economy.
The stimulus could have been structured differently, for example, why have tax incentives for businesses to invest when their is already too much capacity? And research suggests the cash-for-clunkers program was not very helpful.
And more importantly - knowing that recoveries from financial crisis are slow - investment in infrastructure could have been larger and lasted longer (not just "shovel ready" programs).
It is the details that should be debated - understanding what worked and what didn't work would be useful during the next financial crisis (when the next generation of financial wizards think they've discovered how to turn lead into gold) - but overall the program was obviously helpful.  ...
It is sad today that extremist ideologues are arguing the stimulus failed. This is very dangerous for the future. ...
We should debate the actual impact of the stimulus. We should debate the effectiveness of each component of the stimulus. But we should also ridicule the ideologues ...

Sunday, February 16, 2014

The Permanent Scars of Economic Pessimism'

As a follow-up to the post below this one, Antonio Fatas:

The permanent scars of economic pessimism: Gavyn Davies at the Financial Times reflects on the growing pessimism of Central Banks regarding the growth potential of advanced economies. In the US, the Euro area or the UK, central banks are reducing their estimates of the output gap. They now think about some of the recent output losses as permanent as opposed to cyclical.
It output is not far from what we consider to be potential, there is less need for central banks to act and it is more likely that we will see an earlier normalization of monetary policy towards a neutral stance...
But it is important to understand that the permanent effects are the consequence of the recession itself. If we could manage to reduce the length and depth of the recessions we would be minimizing those permanent effects. And in that sense, accepting these changes as structural and unavoidable is too pessimistic, leads to inaction and just makes matters worse. If you read the evidence properly, you want to do the opposite, you want to be even more aggressive to avoid what it looks at a much bigger cost of recessions.

Thursday, February 13, 2014

Debt and Growth: There is No Magic Threshold

New paper from the IMF:

Debt and Growth: Is There a Magic Threshold?, by Andrea Pescatori ; Damiano Sandri ; John Simon [Free Full text]: Summary: Using a novel empirical approach and an extensive dataset developed by the Fiscal Affairs Department of the IMF, we find no evidence of any particular debt threshold above which medium-term growth prospects are dramatically compromised. Furthermore, we find the debt trajectory can be as important as the debt level in understanding future growth prospects, since countries with high but declining debt appear to grow equally as fast as countries with lower debt. Notwithstanding this, we find some evidence that higher debt is associated with a higher degree of output volatility.

[Via Bruce Bartlett on Twitter.]

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Keynesian Economics in Abnormally Slow Recoveries

We are, as they say, live:

Keynesian Economics in Abnormally Slow Recoveries, by Mark Thoma: In theory, Keynesian stabilization policy should “shave the peaks and fill the valleys.” That is, when the economy falls into a recession the government should use deficit spending to lift the economy back towards the full employment level. It should then pay for the policy – increase revenues or reduce spending – during boom periods when the economy is overheated and needs to be slowed down. But what if, like now, there is no boom following the bust? How should we pay for the programs that were put into place during the recession in that case? ...

Monday, February 10, 2014

'Our Military is Irrationally Large'

James Kwak:

Why We Have a Debt Problem, Part 23: So, we have eleven aircraft carrier groups. No other country in the world has more than one. Everyone who has looked at the issue has agreed that we could do with fewer than eleven while still achieving our national security goals: Bush/Obama Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Obama Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, and think tanks on the left and the right.
But apparently we can’t retire even one–even though we would save not just the annual operating costs, but most of the $4.7 billion it will cost to refurbish over the next five years. Instead, the Obama Administration has promised the Pentagon that it can simply have more money and not comply with the spending limits set in the 2011 debt ceiling agreement (and modified by Murray-Ryan).
Why? Well, legislators from states with Navy bases don’t want to reduce the Navy’s budget. More important, though, few people want to be for a smaller military–even when our military is irrationally large, given our other national priorities (healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc.). Instead of asking whether we need eleven times as many aircraft carriers as any other country, defenders insist that any reduction is a sign of weakness–conveniently overlooking the fact that we used to have fifteen carriers, and the world hasn’t ended.  ...

Tuesday, February 04, 2014

'Confronting Old Problem May Require a New Deal'

Eduardo Porter:

Confronting Old Problem May Require a New Deal, by Eduardo Porter, NY Times: ...As he delivered his fifth State of the Union address, President Obama, not unlike President Franklin D. Roosevelt early in his second term, seemed to have given up far too early in the game on trying to stimulate the recovery. ...
The Obama administration’s boldest propositions are sensible, from raising the minimum wage to $10.10 to extending emergency unemployment insurance. But they are not quite on the scale of a trillion dollars’ worth of lost gross domestic product.
This is not just the president’s doing. The bipartisan cooperation that would be needed to start a jobs program of the scale of what was tried during the New Deal — not to mention the World War II production explosion that finally ended the Depression — is out of the question today.
Perhaps more important, however, is that even among Democrats there remains little appetite for the kind of aggressive government action that was popular in F.D.R.’s day.
The fear, however, seems overdone. ...
There are potentially great benefits to government investments in public works at a time like this. ... And it would not even be very expensive. With the borrowing costs of the federal government below the rate of inflation, investments would actually help reduce the nation’s debt burden. Lenders are, in effect, paying the government to borrow money. ...
[T]he path favored by many Republicans in the House..., slash government spending and let the economy run its bedraggled course..., would probably transform our economic emergency from a painful though temporary setback into a permanent feature called stagnation.
And yet this is essentially the policy the nation is following.

I am not fully sold on the secular stagnation argument (see the article for more, Keynes worried about the same thing), but there's no excuse for turning our backs on the unemployed. We could have, and should have done more. Even now, it's not too late.

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

'The Fading of the Deficit'

Paul Krugman comments on the SOTU:

... I think the fading of the deficit both in reality and as an issue is important... Obama isn’t afraid of the big bad deficit any more, and he knows that there won’t be a Grand Bargain, so there’s nothing he can or should do on the front that absorbed so much of his energy for three years. ...

Glad thsi issue is falling off the political radar, but given how many households were hurt by the premature turn to deficit reduction endorsed by Obama, I have a hard time granting much credit to Obama for letting this issue fade.

Wednesday, January 08, 2014

Rubin: Sound Government Finances will Promote Recovery

I don't have time to address this properly, hopefully you can do that in comments, but I'm kind of annoyed with Robert Rubin. He appears to believe in the confidence fairy:

Sound government finances will promote recovery, by Robert Rubin, Commentary, Financial Times: ... The US recovery remains slow by historical standards – even if recent signs of improvement are borne out. One reason is that our unsound fiscal trajectory undermines business confidence, and thus job creation, by creating uncertainty about future policy and exacerbating concerns about the will of Congress to govern. Business leaders frequently cite our fiscal outlook as a deterrent to hiring and investment.

Yes, but  they cite lack of demand as the biggest factor by some margin.

He's also worried about monetary policy:

Unconventional policy decisions by central banks are sometimes justified as the only available tools in the absence of necessary government policies. The right criterion for action, however, is not the absence of alternatives, but an assessment of costs and benefits. ...
In the US, there are widely posed questions about the benefits of QE3, but the risks are significant. ...
Confidence generated by a sound fiscal regime could help ameliorate ... risks. Such a regime should be enacted now to stabilise, or preferably reduce, the ratio of debt-to-gross domestic product over 10 years...

At least there's this (though I left out his call for entitlement reform as that annoyed me too):

Fiscal discipline could provide room for reasonable stimulus to create jobs. The partially cancelled sequestration should be fully rescinded to eliminate its fiscal drag. Fiscal funding should come largely from revenue increases...

He ends with:

Unconventional monetary policy and stimulus can be part of a successful economic programme for a period of time. But they are no substitute for fiscal discipline, public investment and structural reform.

So let me turn this over to you. Have at it...

Tuesday, January 07, 2014

How to Tell if Fiscal Policy Works

I have a new column:

How to Tell if Fiscal Policy Works: There is a raging debate in the econo-blogosphere concerning the effectiveness of fiscal policy when the economy is in a deep recession. This question is important because monetary policy loses much of its effectiveness in severe downturns. ...

It's about how to determine if fiscal policy is effective, and the importance of establishing defensible baselines.

Monday, January 06, 2014

'Monetary versus Fiscal: An Odd Debate'

Simon Wren-Lewis is puzzled by the opposition to the use of fiscal policy. His bottom line:

I remain mystified where this desire to downgrade the usefulness of fiscal policy at the ZLB comes from. I suspect I am missing something, and would like to know what that is.

I've become weary of arguing about the usefulness of fiscal policy in deep recessions after years of doing so, so it's nice to have fresh bloggers to take up the fight, especially ones who know what they are talking about as much as Simon Wren-Lewis does.

Wednesday, January 01, 2014

Meanwhile, in Australia...A Call for Expansionary Austerity!

The push for "expansionary austerity" lives on:

Austerity in Australia, 1980s style, by John Quiggin: The Sydney Morning Herald has an editorial praising the expenditure cuts introduced by the Hawke-Keating government in 1986 and 1987, and suggesting that Abbott should copy this example. ...
This argument carries a great deal of force, because, as we know, the Hawke-Keating cuts restored the budget to surplus, leading to Keating’s famous declaration that the 1988-89 Budget was “the one that brings home the bacon”. Leading scholars like Alesina and Ardagna have pointed to this exercise as one of the great success stories of “expansionary austerity”.
What’s that you say? The economy fell in a heap in 1989, leading to a decade of deficits and fifteen years of high unemployment? To quote another Keating aphorism, that was “the recession we had to have”. I guess we are about due for another.

Monday, December 30, 2013

Paul Krugman: Fiscal Fever Breaks

The deficit scolds have been discredited:

Fiscal Fever Breaks, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: In 2012 President Obama, ever hopeful that reason will prevail, predicted that his re-election would finally break the G.O.P.’s “fever.” It didn’t.
But the intransigence of the right wasn’t the only disease troubling America’s body politic in 2012. We were also suffering from fiscal fever... Instead of talking about mass unemployment and soaring inequality, Washington was almost exclusively focused on the alleged need to slash spending (which would worsen the jobs crisis) and hack away at the social safety net (which would worsen inequality).
So the good news is that this fever, unlike the fever of the Tea Party, has finally broken. ... What changed?...
First, the political premise behind “centrism” — that moderate Republicans would be willing to meet Democrats halfway in a Grand Bargain combining tax hikes and spending cuts — became untenable. There are no moderate Republicans. ...
Second, a combination of rising tax receipts and falling spending has caused federal borrowing to plunge. This is actually a bad thing, because premature deficit-cutting damages our still-weak economy... But a falling deficit has undermined the scare tactics so central to the “centrist” cause. Even longer-term projections of federal debt no longer look at all alarming.
Speaking of scare tactics, 2013 was the year journalists and the public finally grew weary of the boys who cried wolf... — for example, when Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson ... warned that a severe fiscal crisis was likely within two years. But that was almost three years ago.
Finally, over the course of 2013 the intellectual case for debt panic collapsed. ... For ... several years fiscal scolds ... leaned heavily on a paper by ... Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, suggesting that government debt has severe negative effects on growth when it exceeds 90 percent of G.D.P. ...
Then Thomas Herndon, a graduate student at the University of Massachusetts, reworked the data, and found that the apparent cliff at 90 percent disappeared once you corrected a minor error and added a few more data points. ...
Still, does any of this matter? You could argue that it doesn’t — that fiscal scolds may have lost control of the conversation, but that we’re still doing terrible things like cutting off benefits to the long-term unemployed. But while policy remains terrible, we’re finally starting to talk about real issues like inequality, not a fake fiscal crisis. And that has to be a move in the right direction.

Thursday, December 26, 2013

British Economic Triumphalism in Perspective

Menzie Chinn: 

British Economic Triumphalism in Perspective, by Menzie Chinn: Prime Minister Chancellor of the Exchequer Osborne has lauded the recent UK growth numbers as validation for the policy of austerity [1] (recently relaxed, although he doesn't mention that). ...
I think it useful to compare the US and the UK. The former embarked upon a policy of fiscal stimulus, and then retrenchment, but nothing compared to the retrenchment implemented in the latter. And in the US, per capita GDP growth was much more rapid than in the UK.

Us-uk
Figure 1: Log per capita US GDP, in Ch.09$ (blue) and per capita UK GDP, in Ch.2010£ (red). UK population is annual midyear data from IMF WEO, interpolated using quadratic match. Source: BEA, ONS, IMF WEO (October).

The gap between the two series is 7.3% as of 2013Q3. So, the growth in the UK now is merely digging the economy out of a big hole dug for itself in the search of expansionary fiscal contraction. [2].

Friday, December 13, 2013

'IMF Admits it Underestimated the Fiscal Multiplier'

Via Eurointelligence:

IMF admits it underestimated the fiscal multiplier: Speaking at the EU’s Economic and Social Committee, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said on Tuesday that the IMF made a mistake on Greece and Portugal, and that these countries should have had been given more time to reduce their deficits, reports portuguese Público. Specifically Lagarde said that, for lack of studies, the IMF had estimated the fiscal multiplier at 1 or below when in reality it proved to be about 1.7.

I have a 15 hour travel day ahead of me, so one more quick post after this one, then not much more for a while.

Paul Krugman: The Biggest Losers

Fiscal policy has been "deeply destructive":

The Biggest Losers, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: The pundit consensus seems to be that Republicans lost in the just-concluded budget deal. Overall spending will be a bit higher than the level mandated by the sequester... Meanwhile, Democrats avoided making any concessions on Social Security or Medicare. ...
But if Republicans arguably lost this round, the unemployed lost even more: Extended benefits weren’t renewed, so 1.3 million workers will be cut off at the end of this month, and many more will see their benefits run out in the months that follow. And ... since Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in 2010..., a triumph of anti-government ideology that has had enormously destructive effects on American workers.
First, some facts about government spending..., the actual numbers show that over the past three years we’ve been living through an era of unprecedented government downsizing. Government employment is down sharply;... government spending..., has fallen almost 3 percent since 2010 and around 5 percent per capita. ...
There are three things you need to know about these harsh cuts.
First, they were unnecessary..., markets have never shown any concern at all about U.S. creditworthiness..., borrowing costs have stayed at near-record lows...
Second, the cuts did huge short-term economic damage. ... The recent cuts ... took place at the worst possible moment, the aftermath of a financial crisis. Families were struggling to cope with the debt they had run up during the housing bubble; businesses were reluctant to invest given the weakness of consumer demand. Under these conditions, government cutbacks simply swelled the ranks of the unemployed — and as family incomes fell, so did consumer spending, compounding the damage.
The result was to deepen and prolong America’s jobs crisis. Those cuts in government spending are the main reason we still have high unemployment, more than five years after Lehman Brothers fell.
Finally, if you look at ... major areas that were cut, you’ll notice that they mainly involve investing in the future. So we aren’t just looking at short-term harm, we’re also looking at a long-term degradation of our prospects, reinforced by the corrosive effects of sustained high unemployment.
So, about that budget deal: yes, it was a small victory for Democrats. It was also, possibly, a small step toward political sanity...
But the larger picture is one of years of deeply destructive policy, imposing gratuitous suffering on working Americans. And this deal didn’t do much to change that picture.

Thursday, December 12, 2013

'Hoovernomics Explains the Economy'

Michael Froomkin:

Hoovernomics Explains the Economy,  by Michael Froomkin: This one chart tells you much of what you need to know about the fiscal side of the US economy: we’re dealing with a recession/depression Herbert Hoover style — by cutting government spending just when we would have needed a strong counter-cyclical push from government.

121213krugman1-blog480

What’s good about this chart, lifted from Krugman, is that it aggregates federal, state, and local spending...
Something to consider as you look at the ugly budget deal coming out of Congress — the one that doesn’t extend unemployment benefits and, as far as I can tell, doesn’t fix the recent vicious cuts to food stamps either. (Please correct me if I’m wrong about that.)

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

'Budget Deal Does Little to Address the Needs of the Economy'

Larry Mishel of the EPI:

Budget Deal Does Little to Address the Needs of the Economy: While all the details have yet to be released, it seems clear that the budget agreement announced by Senator Patty Murray and Representative Paul Ryan, which sets discretionary budget authority limits for fiscal years 2014 and 2015, will do essentially nothing to alter the disastrous trajectory that has characterized fiscal policy since 2011. I support reaching an agreement that will end the culture of periodic crises that has driven policy in recent years. However, this deal addresses the wrong set of priorities: deficit reduction ten years out rather than a stronger recovery now, and tweaking domestic spending for a few years as we continue to ignore the public investments our country needs.
The worst part of the budget deal by far is what it doesn’t address: unemployment insurance for America’s four million long-term unemployed workers. This deal asks essentially nothing of the richest Americans while placing terrible burdens on new federal employees and the unemployed, and continuing the fiscal policy drag on our still-unfinished recovery.

Public and Private Sector Payroll Jobs: Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama

Calculated Risk takes a look at public and private job growth for recent presidents:

Cr1

Cr2

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Fighting Deficient Aggregate Demand with Infrastructure Spending

Brad DeLong is "Pleased to See Martin Feldstein Wisely Calling for Large, Immediate Fiscal Stimulus to Boost Employment!":

I Am Pleased to See Martin Feldstein Wisely Calling for Large, Immediate Fiscal Stimulus to Boost Employment!, by Brad DeLong: But the rest of his column leaves me puzzled…
Martin Feldstein calls for the U.S. to fight deficient aggregate demand by spending an extra trillion dollars on infrastructure over the next five years–and then to keep that program from worsening the government debt-to-GDP ratio by also enacting tax increases and spending cuts that would bring the debt down to its baseline level between, say, years five and fifteen, by, say, 2028.
With idle labor and slack capacity at their current levels, the best bet is that such a program would boost total real GDP by at least $2 trillion over the next five years–and actually raise the government’s debt five years hence by at most $333 billion because of the federal, state, and local taxes that would be paid on the added income from higher real GDP.
But there is no need to also find the political will to reach agreement on longer-run tax increases and spending cuts in order to keep this program from worsening the long-run debt outlook..., an extra trillion dollars of infrastructure will boost U.S. national income in the long run by at least $40 billion a year–and the U.S. government will then collect $13.3 billion a year in extra taxes because of higher levels of income.
Thus Feldstein’s short-run program alone, without the hard-to-pass long-run component, would free up more than $7.8 billion a year of debt-amortization capacity: it would all by itself improve the long-run fiscal picture.
So why the focus on the need for a hard-to-pass long-run deal, and the unnecessary claim that it must be coupled to the short-run before what makes sense makes sense? It remains a mystery to me…
Also a mystery to me: just what is it that makes quantitative easing so risky? Keeping the U.S. economy in a situation of slack aggregate demand–yes, that is risky. But how is the Fed’s buying government bonds and holding them to maturity–even a lot of such bonds–risky? What is the risk? What might happen that would be bad, and couldn’t be neutralized? ...

He also points to Krugman's comments: My Favorite Martian.