Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

October 31, 2008
By: Hilzoy

A Chorus Of Concord

It's not every day that Paul Krugman and Martin Feldstein (head of Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors and an advisor to the McCain campaign) find themselves in complete agreement. Feldstein:

"With the Fed's benchmark interest rate down to 1 percent, there is no scope for an easier monetary policy to stop the downward spiral in aggregate demand. (...)

The only way to prevent a deepening recession will be a temporary program of increased government spending. Previous attempts to use government spending to stimulate an economic recovery, particularly spending on infrastructure, have not been successful because of long legislative lags that delayed the spending until a recovery was well underway. But while past recessions lasted an average of only about 12 months, this downturn is likely to last much longer, providing the scope for successful countercyclical spending."

Krugman:

"One of the high points of the semester, if you're a teacher of introductory macroeconomics, comes when you explain how individual virtue can be public vice, how attempts by consumers to do the right thing by saving more can leave everyone worse off. The point is that if consumers cut their spending, and nothing else takes the place of that spending, the economy will slide into a recession, reducing everyone's income.

In fact, consumers' income may actually fall more than their spending, so that their attempt to save more backfires -- a possibility known as the paradox of thrift.

At this point, however, the instructor hastens to explain that virtue isn't really vice: in practice, if consumers were to cut back, the Fed would respond by slashing interest rates, which would help the economy avoid recession and lead to a rise in investment. So virtue is virtue after all, unless for some reason the Fed can't offset the fall in consumer spending.

I'll bet you can guess what's coming next.

For the fact is that we are in a liquidity trap right now: Fed policy has lost most of its traction. It's true that Ben Bernanke hasn't yet reduced interest rates all the way to zero, as the Japanese did in the 1990s. But it's hard to believe that cutting the federal funds rate from 1 percent to nothing would have much positive effect on the economy. In particular, the financial crisis has made Fed policy largely irrelevant for much of the private sector: The Fed has been steadily cutting away, yet mortgage rates and the interest rates many businesses pay are higher than they were early this year.

The capitulation of the American consumer, then, is coming at a particularly bad time. But it's no use whining. What we need is a policy response. (...)

No, what the economy needs now is something to take the place of retrenching consumers. That means a major fiscal stimulus. And this time the stimulus should take the form of actual government spending rather than rebate checks that consumers probably wouldn't spend."

Likewise: Larry Summers, Ben Bernanke, Joseph Stiglitz (pdf), Nouriel Roubini, etc.

Here's a handy chart detailing which measures give us the most stimulus bang for the buck (h/t):

Photobucket

Hilzoy 3:24 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
 
Comments

Feldstein's nothing but a fucking socialist!

"Keynes! Calling Mr. John Maynard Keynes!"

Posted by: Jeff II on October 31, 2008 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

Infrastructure spending is really a twofer, in that so much of it badly needs to be replaced in any case. So I'm glad that Obama speaks of it as one of his priorities.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on October 31, 2008 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

And where on this "Fiscal Bang for your Buck" scale does recapitalizing banks in exchange for warranties fit?

Posted by: Danp on October 31, 2008 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

Sadly, all the facts in the world will not affect those who have drunk the koolade of supply side economics. They exist in their own reality, chanting "There is no faith but Conservatism and Ronal Reagan is its prophet!"

Posted by: SteveT on October 31, 2008 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

"The capitulation of the American consumer", what a phrase! Like the consumers had a choice.

Consumers only kept spending because so many people took the equity out of their homes with HELOC's.

Now those are drying up and the banks are lowering the credit lines to match the new value of the homes.

Only government funded infrastructure improvements (much needed, as Steve noted), plus some more money in consumers pockets, can right this ship.

It'd also be nice if the financial rules were changed back so this can't happen again anytime soon.

Posted by: zak822 on October 31, 2008 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

Jim Jubak at MSN has been on this for a good month, saying Bernanke/Fed are creating a new bubble.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on October 31, 2008 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

Raising the income baseline on AMT -- without paying for it -- was one of the worst parts of the bailout package.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on October 31, 2008 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

I don't see "Across the board tax cuts" anywhere in the Permanent column. Seems to me this would generate the biggest multiplier effect, as people would be more apt to spend money they would consider permanent income.

Posted by: gab on October 31, 2008 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

Across the board tax cut when we have a Federal deficit of 10 trillion dollars is shear idiocy.

A positively Bushian suggestion.

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on October 31, 2008 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

Small but not entirely unimportant nitpick: the interest rate that the fed controls is the nominal interest rate, not the real one. When inflation is at, say, 5%, when you lend a dollar and get $1.05 back in a year, the nominal rate may be 5%, but the real interest rate is zero, because after inflation that $1.05 buys you exactly the same as a dollar a year ago.

So in fact US real interest rates are significantly negative, and have been for some time. (As they were during much of the economic doldrums of the 70s.)

It's funny that Krugman et al don't mention that, but they like to avoid sprading panic.

Posted by: paul on October 31, 2008 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

The technical definition of a liquidity trap is that there is nothing useful to do that requires investment.


Posted by: MattYoung on October 31, 2008 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

Why does Jeff II think that Keynes was a "socialist"? His economics in the 1930s was actually aimed at saving capitalism. He clearly during WW2 wanted to help design an international economic system that would make the world safe for capitalism. All this is clear if you read any of the good books about Keynes, by Markwell, Moggridge, Skidelsky, or Harrod. It is a shame that the so-called (and in my view well-justified) "revival of Keynes" at the moment, and the reaction against this, isn't based on a fuller understanding of what he was actually about.

Posted by: Laura Harrison on November 1, 2008 at 12:53 AM | PERMALINK

I like to point this out over and over. The top 4 "bang for buck" solutions are either too small in magnitude or too delayed in effect to be useful RIGHT NOW.

The best solution we have at this moment is the suspension of payroll taxes.

I like infrastructure - it is great long term stimulus, and we should aggressively pursue an infrastructure plan. That said, we need stimulus today, not in q2-q3 2009.

A payroll tax holiday is the best way to get our of our current crisis.

Posted by: mickslam on November 1, 2008 at 8:48 AM | PERMALINK

If interest rates are 0%, we might see rates as low as 4%.

Does it frustrate anyone ELSE that those charged with circulating capital can't do this for less than 4% before you and I can see a dime?

At 1% I might well be tempted to bankroll my small business for major expansion and hire a half dozen technicians.

I'm not doing that at the 6% they want to charge me today. Payroll taxes are a deal breaker too.

Are banks expecting those of us who aren't "leveraged" to the hilt to borrow money at the same rates the bankrupt fools of this nation borrowed at to bail them out of their poor decisions? There are no profits in attempting to fleece the frugal. Only stagnation. The days of making millions off of suckers have passed. There remain only honest business deals with wiser women and men.

Your move, Wall Street.

Posted by: toowearyforoutrage on November 1, 2008 at 9:00 AM | PERMALINK




 

 
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM

Advertise in College Guide






Search Now:
In Association with Amazon.com


Place Your Link Here

---Paid Advertisements---

Payday Loans

Personal Loans

Addiction Treatment

Phone Cards

Less Debt = Financial Freedom

Addiction Treatment Programs

Credit Cards & Debt Consolidation

Bad Credit Loans

Vacation Rentals