home

Tax Cuts Are Not Effective Fiscal Stimulus

Since December, you have read me rail often against The Deal. My objection was not, per se, to the tax cuts, but rather to the fact that the tax cuts would be "paid for" by spending cuts in the following months. The efficacy of government spending as opposed to tax cuts is beyond dispute. Trading spending for tax cuts is terrible policy if your are trying to stimulate the economy in a zero bound environment.

As in December with regard to The Deal, Ezra Klein tries to make lemonade from this lemon of a policy, this time citing Larry Summers' endorsing more tax cuts as fiscal stimulus (and, to be fair, arguing for no spending cuts, good luck with that now). As for The Deal, Klein treats the proposed tax cuts as effective fiscal stimulus with no spending cuts tradeoff:

This election will be won or lost by governance and the economy, not by candidates and campaigns. Another $200 billion in economic stimulus will mean a lot more to Obama’s reelection effort than $200 million in ads.

(Emphasis supplied.) To imagine that spending cuts will not be traded off for those tax cuts is simply absurd. Obama and Dems need to argue for something better than this.

Speaking for me only

< Medicare For All | Tuesday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    But...but..but (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 10:07:05 AM EST
    the GOP has been saying for decades that tax cuts pay for themselves so in essence they are conceding that they don't pay for themselves.

    Chuck Todd had Grover Norquist on (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 11:51:33 AM EST
    today to talk about the no tax pledge he is pushing in the Republican caucus.  It was all the typical rhetoric about basically ending all government taxation from Norquist until I caught a gem of a comment:  

    Norquist said that if we legalized online gambling we could tax that and that he would NOT consider a tax, but rather an "expansion".

    Which immediately made me think - and no offense to gamblers - "Oh great.  So we'll be a nation of degenerate gamblers supporting our government with our gambling addiction."

    But what's really funny - or not - is of course Norquist would offer up the carrot of tax in exchange for legalized gambling and the minute that the online gambling was legalized he'd be lobbying to end the tax.

    I don't have a position positive or negative on online gambling and I have placed a bet or two in my life so I'm not opposed to it, but this is just a really great example of how bankrupt these tax credit and anti-tax schemes really are.

    Parent

    And so we should ask (none / 0) (#49)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 01:27:27 PM EST
    if Norquist obtains some financial support from gambling interests.

    Don't suppose for one minute that Norquist wouldn't sell his soul for financial support to carry on his war on civilization and desire to establish a dominant aristocracy.

    Parent

    Do we really have to ask? (none / 0) (#86)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 05:22:08 PM EST
    lol  "Of course" is the answer.

    Parent
    I think you are making this up: (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by me only on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 10:18:37 AM EST
    The efficacy of government spending as opposed to tax cuts is beyond dispute.

    Maybe Krugman thinks that the case, but not all Nobel Prize winning economists agree.

    Find one who does not agree (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 10:30:02 AM EST
    Robert Mundell (none / 0) (#13)
    by me only on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 11:08:43 AM EST
    Now find a hundred more (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Dadler on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 11:23:57 AM EST
    That's what you'd need to have a marginally valid point.

    If you think companies, who are in business to do one thing -- make as much money as possible by paying as few people as little as possible -- are going to start spending and investing and hiring, well, you're very naive.  As Wal-Mart is now discovering, scumbags that they are, when you impoverish your customers, you can't sell any more cheap crap to them.  

    This country has a wealth disparity growing by the second.  And the uber-rich thieve and thieve and thieve and NEVER have to pay any price of significance.  Short of a moral breakthrough, this country will be burning in the streets within 20 years, and the uber-wealthy will be fleeing this country for their lives much sooner.

    Sad, but I see no other outcome in a nation divided and, frankly, on the verge of collective mental retardation.

    Parent

    At this point in our history (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 11:43:05 AM EST
    You can shop for an economists opinion that you want to hear just like you can shop for an astrologer that predicts the future you want to have.

    Parent
    You're being unfair (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by sj on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 12:32:48 PM EST
    to astrologers.

    Parent
    Considering there are not (none / 0) (#25)
    by me only on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 11:47:13 AM EST
    one hundred living winners of the Nobel Prize, I can't.  Of course, you can't find them to support your notions either...

    Parent
    Shop till you drop :) (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 11:50:20 AM EST
    That's what we are all doing these days

    Parent
    You idea regarding tax cuts (none / 0) (#96)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 10:55:12 PM EST
    is asinine on it's face.

    Low taxes on the wealthy leave large amounts of discretionary income that flees the country looking for the highest return or simply isn't spent except to garner more control of economic resources.

    Direct government spending into the economy is far more effective and that should be obvious.

    You have to understand that people like Mankiw are fundamentally corrupt (like Glenn Hubbard, Martin Feldstein, etc - the list is long), for sale to whomever has the price.

    Your fawning regard for Nobel prize winners is terribly naive.


    Parent

    Not all Nobel Prize winning (none / 0) (#59)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 02:11:59 PM EST
    economists are created equal.

    Parent
    The same is true of (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by sj on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 03:19:16 PM EST
    recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#97)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 10:56:05 PM EST
    ain't it the truth.

    Parent
    Right, Friedman and Stigler (none / 0) (#80)
    by me only on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 04:11:49 PM EST
    influenced Markowitz who influenced Koopmans and Morgenstern/Neumann (non-winners, but did publish the first work about game theory), and Coase.

    Krugman has influenced Melitz.

    That's five winners (and Schwartz) to one.

    Parent

    Freidman (none / 0) (#94)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 10:21:56 PM EST
    shouldn't have received anything but contempt.

    His childish nonsense is proof positive that the Nobel prize in economics is based on vapor.

    Parent

    In economic terms sending all adult citizens a $1000 check (stimulus spending) vs giving all adult citizens a $1000 tax credit (tax cut) has exactly the same economic effects, including in this case a Fiscal Stimulus and an increase in the national debt of $1000/citizen. No economist (including Krugman) has ever argued otherwise.

    How the spending (or tax cut) is distributed does effect the amount of Fiscal Stimulus per new debt dollar. Also the amount of market distortion introduced by different spending and tax cut proposals will vary. A broad based tax cut or stimulus check (ideally a tax credit or stimulus check equal to a percentage of your current year income from all sources) would provide the least distortion to the economy. The original example of $1000 to every adult citizen will provide more stimulus/$ but will distort the economy slightly by not stimulating as much the economy frequented by upper class consumers so some unfortunate workers that work in those industries will remain jobless.

    Parent

    When the Masters of the Universe (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 10:20:12 AM EST
    completely eliminate the payroll tax they will accomplish their objective and I'm not talking about stimulating the economy.

    There's probably some truth in that (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 10:30:12 AM EST
    Then Peter G Peterson will be correct and this Social Security thing will never work......again.  I'm certain his brainiacs are firmly behind those cuts.  Now how much negotiating with Larry Summers and Geithner before everyone agrees on those particular cuts.  They may be the only cuts we can get everyone to agree to and the only way we can pass some more policy in order to aid this horrible situation we are in.....it doesn't matter if it is policy that is toxic to the futures of Americans, it is new policy and they wrote it and passed it, break out the champagne.

    Parent
    Back door way to cut corporate taxes (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 10:46:54 AM EST
    that will have no real effect on job creation. As often stated, companies are only going to hire when demand for their products or services exceeds theircurrent ability to produce those products or services.

    So it is a two-fer for the Masters of the Universe. More corporate profits, more money in their pockets from huge salaries and obscene bonuses and the ability to create the SS crisis that they have been fraudulently selling for decades.

    A lose/lose for ordinary people who will lose the ability to retire with dignity and not spend their waning years in abject poverty.

    Parent

    And remember (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 11:37:01 AM EST
    When corporations make big profits we are all magically confident.  Even when our children are starving and can't get healthcare or go to college.  When corporations make big profits it magically hypnotizes everyone into understanding that everything is fine and wonderful....glorious.  Go out there and spend.....well, we don't have anything to spend but so what?  According to the Larry Summers model that his head is stuffed to brimming with, this works.  Not so much in real life, but when you have a PhD and reside at Harvard you are free to create your own "real life" and argue that that is reality with more credibility than everyone else even if you are as wrong as wrong can be.

    Parent
    And especially because the tax cuts (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 10:23:44 AM EST
    in question are the employer side of the payroll tax - how does reducing the cost of hiring do anything to put money into the economy?  Are companies where demand is flat all of a sudden going to hire employees because of a cut on their side of the payroll tax?  Why would a company hire someone it doesn't need to save some minimal amount of payroll tax?  Maybe "the more you spend, the more you save" works for selling next-day carpet, but spending $40,000 on salary and benefits to save some small percentage of payroll tax makes no sense.

    And, given that any so-called stimulus will undoubtedly "have to be" offset by spending cuts of an equal amount, I fail to see how this is going to spur hiring, or demand.

    I have absolutely zero hope or confidence or expectation that this administration will formulate or advocate for any policy that makes sense for the economy, or that will improve the quality of life that has, for far too many people, been steadily declining.

    I can't wait to see what kind of damage they will do via the debt ceiling "negotiations."

    Ugh.


    And this is how (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by sj on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 12:34:40 PM EST
    SS is made more and more vulnerable.  

    Parent
    I thought the payroll tax cuts went to (none / 0) (#14)
    by Buckeye on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 11:13:15 AM EST
    employees?  Are you sure about that, b/c the payroll tax in my paycheck is 1% lower.

    Parent
    The new proposal under discussion (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 11:29:37 AM EST
    Fiscal support should, in fact, be expanded by providing the payroll tax cut to employers as well as employees. Raising the share of the payroll tax cut from 2 percent to 3 percent would be desirable as well.

    Summers per Klein link. This idea seems to be the flavor of month and I have heard it being proposed by various sources.  

    Parent

    Yes, this balloon has been (none / 0) (#43)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 01:05:56 PM EST
    floating up there for a couple of weeks.  Now it trial is being coordinated with Summers and Klein.

    Parent
    This is a new one (none / 0) (#15)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 11:15:13 AM EST
    for the employers, I think. The other that you see in your check was a result of The Deal.

    Parent
    Got it, thanks. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Buckeye on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 11:17:39 AM EST
    That extra 150 pennies... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 01:22:17 PM EST
    a week is sooooo stimulative, ain't it?  I bought an extra cup of coffee last week!

    Now let me take home my gross for a few weeks, thats an extra 3 hundo a week...I'll stimulate the f8ck outta the neighborhood...grocer man, used record store man, travel agent man, and of course beefier orders with the bush doctor.

    Cutting the taxes of people who are not going without anything is not stimulative...that cash just sits in an account somewhere collecting dust and meager interest.

    Parent

    from the US bonds they bought which fund the budget deficit.

    Parent
    Well thats good... (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 02:13:55 PM EST
    for drunken sailor congressional spenders and China...it's not really gonna help the grocer man, or give him a reason to hire another stockboy or place a stock order.

    Parent
    Well, if no one wanted to buy the bonds (none / 0) (#64)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 02:20:03 PM EST
    the gov would have to raise the vig on them in order to make them more attractive to investors, which would raise interest rates across the economy and would then severely hurt the grocer man and his stockboy.

    Parent
    Plan B... (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 02:22:31 PM EST
    stiff China and the other investors?  Ya can't say they haven't asked for it, they obviously haven't done their homework on the direction this country is headed:)

    Parent
    Ha! (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 02:26:18 PM EST
    That would give me some emotional satisfaction.

    Parent
    Pretty scary... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 02:28:47 PM EST
    that the whole she-bang is built on mere trust and faith in the United States...make that very scary.

    I know alcoholics that are more trustworthy.

    Parent


    Reducing the cost of hiring and/or labor will result in more of each.  This is simple econ 101.

    Parent
    Econ 101 (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 12:22:21 PM EST
    also states no hiring without demand.....reducing the payroll tax will not increase demand.

    Parent
    Um (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 12:22:59 PM EST
    Reducing it on the EMPLOYER side, that is....

    Parent
    Well, it is possible (none / 0) (#44)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 01:12:16 PM EST

    Well, it is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.  Increasing the demand for labor by reducing the cost of labor can occur at the same time other actions are taken to increase aggregate demand.

    Parent
    Unemployment is reducing the (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 01:37:36 PM EST
    cost of labor, or haven't you been paying attention?  In an economy with real unemployment that is up near 18%, companies that are hiring do not have to pay top dollar to new hires just grateful to be working.

    And I don't see those lower wages spurring a lot of additional hiring, do you?

    Parent

    Superb (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 02:15:31 PM EST
    comment.

    Parent
    It all depends (none / 0) (#71)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 02:35:42 PM EST

    Who was talking about lowering wages?  I mentioned lowering labor cost in reference to lowering the employer's payroll tax.  In many places union wage agreements keep the wage of a new worker fixed.  Minimum wage jobs are similar in that regard.  One size does not fit all.  

    Parent
    I meant (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 01:51:53 PM EST
    I meant demand for PRODUCT not labor.  Decreasing the cost of labor by a paltry 2% will not increase hiring unless the product demand increases.  

    In this economy, this 2% tax cut to EMPLOYERS will not be spent on hiring.  Likely, at the large corporations it will be pocketed.  Smaller employers might spend it on their own infrastructure, who knows....if 2% makes any difference at all to them.

    And of course, the cut will undermine Social Security/Medicare at the same time, a double boon for the corrupt folks at the top.

    Parent

    To increase hiring (none / 0) (#72)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 02:37:30 PM EST

    the demand for labor must increase.

    Parent
    And to do that (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 10:32:16 PM EST
    requires ordinary people to have some discretionary income, meaning that low wages don't cut it.

    Your low wage ideas are truly repulsive, morally reprehensible.

    Parent

    Reducing the cost of labor (none / 0) (#105)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jun 15, 2011 at 01:31:13 PM EST

    by reducing the employer's payroll tax does not lower wages at all.  Gak!

    Parent
    It is possible to dance while your hair (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 04:38:30 PM EST
    is on fire for a little while too. Does not mean that is a responsible or long term productive thing to do to generate anything.  It will change things too for you long after the brief applause dies down.

    Parent
    Well now you've said it (none / 0) (#50)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 01:37:01 PM EST
    Demand is necessary to increase employment.  


    Parent
    You are right about Employer side paroll tax cuts, but Employee side payroll tax cuts are Effective Stimulus.

    In theory a tax cut that is broad based is just as effective as a Stimulus as broad based spending. In practice it is much easier to quickly implement broad based tax cuts (eg the Employee side payroll tax cut) than broad based spending (the 2009 stimulus spending often did not get spent until 18+ months later). To protect Social Security a corresponding amount of Treasury Bonds will have to be deposited on the Social Security Trust fund, so a payroll tax will increase the deficit just as a spending increase would.

    Also Payroll tax cuts and cannot be attacked on the ground that the resulting spending is wasteful : consumer consumption is never perceived as wasteful since the person benefiting from the consumption chooses what to buy. For this reason Payroll tax cuts also distorts the free market least of all Fiscal Stimulus options, especially compared to government spending that is never evenly distributed across the economy.

    Parent

    I may be wrong... (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 11:16:06 AM EST
    but I seem to recall that when Clinton was first elected, he had inherited a deficit.

    He raised taxes and obliterated the deficit.

    By the end of his second term, there was a surplus.

    As I say, perhaps I am remembering it wrong, but if I am correct, why in blazes don't we follow a path that was effective instead of one that has proven to be ineffective?

    I'm assuming your question is redundant, (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 12:56:07 PM EST
    But it does serve to illustrate that to Republicans economics, like religion, is an article of faith. "Jesus is the son of God," is unproven, yet unquestioned. "Tax cuts are always good,"..........ditto.

    When you "make your own reality," you can say anything and the bobb'n head ditto's just go into their auto-pilot, spasdic head nodding.

    Why Obama, and the Democrats, don't call out this lunacy for what it is, is the dilemma we face.


    Great comment (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 12:58:36 PM EST
    Why? Because Obama's on board, (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 01:40:43 PM EST
    and the Blue Dogs are right there with him.

    Austerity Now, baby!

    Parent

    And that's why I called it (none / 0) (#87)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 06:06:37 PM EST
    "the dilemma we face."


    Parent
    The fiscal stimulus the WH seems most (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 03:38:42 PM EST
    concerned with is making sure they get the financial support of Wall Street to secure Obama's re-election; I mean, where better to go when you're looking to raise a billion dollars?  Makes me sick thinking about how much good that much money would do for people who really need the help.

    Glenn:

    But it's the article on Obama's efforts to re-woo the Wall Street tycoons who funded much of his 2008 campaign that is particularly revealing, as it highlights the real election taking place:

    Last month, Mr. Obama's campaign manager, Jim Messina, traveled to New York for back-to-back meetings with Wall Street donors, ending at the home of Marc Lasry, a prominent hedge fund manager, to court donors close to Mr. Obama's onetime rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton. And Mr. Obama will return to New York this month to dine with bankers, hedge fund executives and private equity investors at the Upper East Side restaurant Daniel.

    "The first goal was to get recognition that the administration has led the economy from an unimaginably difficult place to where we are today," said Blair W. Effron, an investment banker closely involved in Mr. Obama's fund-raising efforts. "Now the second goal is to turn that into support" . . . .

    Members of the president's economic team and his chief of staff, William M. Daley, a former banking executive, have been more active in reaching out to Wall Street executives about policy issues, donors said.

    One Democratic financier invited to this month's dinner, who asked for anonymity because he did not want to anger the White House, said it was ironic that the same president who once criticized bankers as "fat cats" would now invite them to dine at Daniel, where the six-course tasting menu runs to $195 a person.

    Glenn again:

    While millions upon millions of Americans continue to suffer greatly under the country's ongoing economic woes without any end in sight, the Obama years have, indeed, been very, very good to this tiny constituency of wealth he's now eagerly courting.  And with a Chief of Staff like Bill Daley and a Treasury Secretary like Tim Geithner, it's hard to imagine this effort triggering anything other than ultimate success.

    Oh, yay!  Success!

    Bleah...


    Of course he does (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by sj on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 11:26:42 PM EST
    One liberal gadfly neutralized.

    Yeah, thanks a lot Weiner. (none / 0) (#103)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 08:11:49 AM EST
    Idiot. If I were a brit I'd call him a wanker. oops, I just did.

    Parent
    OK, that seals it! (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Nemi on Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 07:04:44 AM EST
    I'm now decidedly with the 'Weiner should stay' crowd. ;)

    Hope he doesn't chicken out ! (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 08:52:17 AM EST
    Because:

    1. People shouldn't be hounded out of office for entirely legal activities.

    2. I don't want to hear about the Internet "sex lives" of every pol for the next umpteen years.  I really don't.  And, if Weiner goes, we will.


    Parent
    This link to another person's (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 10:04:18 AM EST
    current Larry Summers opinion seems fitting here.  Anyhow, all the fatheads spent their political capital negotiating for and arguing for things that didn't have a real chance of pulling us out of this very real emergency and very real crisis. And nobody taught them that Ben Bernanke can't print more political capital or more Dem seats in the House and the Senate when the voters get really pissed at you for turning out to be an ineffective fathead.

    Too be fair (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 10:09:09 AM EST
    I didn't realize there was a bonfire under the political capital that was available to spend until I read some of your assessments.  It is too easy for some of us sometimes to focus on only one area, only to wake up and discover that someone is handing us our arse.  Having a PhD and bulging eyeballs when you yell as well as running a snobby college is a bit overrated on the battlefield of life.

    Parent
    OMG (none / 0) (#54)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 01:48:56 PM EST
    I just read the article "Endless Summers."  Great pictures.

    Why in hell anyone is listening to this worthless pile is beyond belief, except that we're living in a world that places great value on cute sounding bull sh!t.

    Our 'elites' are full of it.

    Parent

    America as always has a short memory (none / 0) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 04:05:10 PM EST
    As Krugman so eloquently (none / 0) (#4)
    by Raymond Bell on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 10:14:57 AM EST
    put it:

    You might have thought that an ideology that failed so dramatically would have been to at least some extent abandoned. But noooo: belief in tax-cut magic is central to the Ryan plan, and aspiring GOP candidates like Pawlenty seem to be in a race to see who can go more overboard in supply-side faith. Oh, and if you don't believe their claims, you don't trust the American people.

    What will it take before the GOP drops voodoo as its official religion?

    Warning

    The following link may not be suitable for all members of the Tea Party.

    Ideologies That Fail Upward

    Greg Mankiw says BTD's Wrong (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 10:37:54 AM EST
    Link

    "the results in Valerie Ramey's research suggest a government spending multiplier of about 1.4."

    "By contrast, recent research by Christina Romer and David Romer looks at tax changes and concludes that the tax multiplier is about three: A dollar of tax cuts raises GDP by about three dollars."

    "Suppose, for example, that tax cuts are not lump-sum but instead take the form of cuts in payroll taxes (as suggested by Bils and Klenow). This tax cut would reduce the cost of labor and, if labor and capital are complements, increase the demand for capital goods. Thus, the tax cut stimulates demand not only by increasing disposable income and consumption spending (the textbook Keynesian channel) but also by incentivizing more investment spending. A similar result might obtain if the tax cut included, say, an investment tax credit."

    "In particular, empirical studies that do not impose the restrictions of Keynesian theory suggest that you might get more bang for the buck with tax cuts than spending hikes."

    In December 2008 (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 10:46:08 AM EST
    Mankiw points to data that he claims indicates that in the ENTIRE post WWI period, tax cuts are more stimulative than government spending.

    While this is complete nonsense, it is not even to the point - zero bound environment.

    Depression economics. I suppose if you want to willfully misunderstand things, you can say anything.

    Greg Mankiw, a chief economic advisor of George W. Bush, is actually someone who has some splainin to do.

    But YMMV.  

    Parent

    Funny exchange on This Week yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 11:35:48 AM EST
    between Richard Shelby and Robert Reich. Reich was talking about FDR's programs, and Shelby chimes in...

    SHELBY: Well, first of all, I think we should do that, but we should do -- work it in the private sector. WPA did not bring us out of the depression. The war did. We look back at the stimulus, nearly a trillion dollars gone down the drain. We've got to create the conditions of certainty to get people to have confidence to create jobs.

    AMANPOUR: Can I ask you...

    REICH: But the war brought us out of the Great Depression because of that spending; 120 percent of the national economy was spending.

    Of course war spending never counts as government spending to these guys.

    Parent

    A basic, common misunderstanding (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Towanda on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 01:23:44 PM EST
    about the WPA, CCC, and other similar programs part of the New Deal:  That those aspects were designed to bring us out of the Great Depression.

    No.  Those were designed for the American public to SURVIVE the Great Depression, and to come out it with new work skills gained in many of the programs, for the day when the economy rebounded, in part owing to other aspects of FDR's plans.

    With that understanding, we may be able to better see what is attempted today to bring back the economy from depression vs. what is attempted to help the American public survive until then.  (Not much, and less with every day.)

    Parent

    We have created 2 wars and (none / 0) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 11:46:36 AM EST
    at least 2 more mini wars where we are dropping "Freedom bombs" to the tune of billions more per month. Tax cuts and wars don't seem to be doing the job.

    BTW, prior to baby Bush, didn't the U.S. raise taxes during war time?

    Parent

    Wars (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 12:25:53 PM EST
    were much different then....required humans, instead of drones and smart bombs.

    Parent
    also (none / 0) (#45)
    by CST on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 01:14:45 PM EST
    the wars were already going on at the time of the collapse, so that's not "new" spending.

    If anything, it was propping up the economy under Bush before the crash.  Almost makes you wonder how much bad things really were before the crash.  Had we not been in two wars, where would the economy have been that whole time?

    The flip side of that, of course, is imagine if we had done something else more productive with that money, and how much better off we would be right now if that investment had gone into infrastructure or eductation - the foundations for sustained growth.

    It's hard to be an entrepeneur these days without a basic understanding of english, math and science.

    Parent

    The tax cuts were already in effect (none / 0) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 02:14:55 PM EST
    at the time of the collapse, so they not "new" either. Neither the tax cuts or the wars are providing us with a thriving economy.

    Had we maintained the tax structure established during the Clinton administration and used that money and the money wasted on the wars for investment in infrastructure, research, education and real health care, I agree we would have foundations for sustained growth.

    Parent

    Do you realize that during a war (none / 0) (#81)
    by me only on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 04:14:17 PM EST
    people go back to work, but you don't get a fair wage for the work?  Not to mention the little idea of being "the arsenal of freedom," might just mean that someone else is buying your stuff.

    Parent
    i don't think anyone here (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by CST on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 04:20:12 PM EST
    thinks that war is the ideal way for the government to spend us out of a recession.

    What conservatives fail to recognize, is that when they constantly mention WW2 as the reason why the New Deal (and therefore government spending) failed to get us out of the depression, is that all WW2 did was bring on a massive government jobs program that was significantly bigger than the new deal, and was therefore big enough to get us out of the whole we were in.

    Ideally that money could be spent on things other than a world war.  But regardless, it did require spending (massive amounts of it), by the government, to get us out of the depression.

    Parent

    And what happened in 1945? (none / 0) (#84)
    by me only on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 04:55:22 PM EST
    We had a "recession."  It coincided with the drop in spending on the war.  After that we got to build stuff w/o competition and were a major exporter.

    The problem with stimulus is that it must end and when it does you need something else.  Go look at the economy right after the Civil War or WWI.  Recession followed the decrease in government spending.  At some point the hangover is going to happen.  The solution is not drinking more and more.  We had stimulus in 2008 and again in 2009.  When does it end, because when it does there is a large bill to pay.

    Parent

    Think about what you are saying (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 05:05:28 PM EST
    'Recession follows a decrease in government spending'. Precisely. So why are we all trying to decrease government spending? Stimulus can go on. The problem is that governments keep stopping it.

    Parent
    It cannot go on (none / 0) (#89)
    by me only on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 07:33:48 PM EST
    ask Greece, ask Portugal, ask Ireland.  (And MMT is just inflation if you are lucky, hyperinflation if you are not.  That is not a bet worth making and only the mighty dumb don't understand that.)

    That is the lunacy, that government spending can always increase.

    Hell, if government spending was the key, Europe would have trounced the US in post WWII growth.  It didn't.  Private industry creates wealth.

    Parent

    Greece (none / 0) (#90)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 08:26:02 PM EST
    Portugal, etc. are not sovereign in their own currencies. They are straight jacketed by a type of gold standard.

    As for MMT you clearly know absolutely nothing about it so you have nothing to offer to that discussion.

    Basically you are an advocate for Austrian lunacy, the gold standard, and permanent boom and bust cycles. You might want to get in on the bitcoin bubble before it pops.

    Parent

    I don't believe we should return to the (none / 0) (#91)
    by me only on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 08:29:20 PM EST
    gold standard, and based on your reading comprehension of the payroll tax reduction you obviously cannot possibly understand MMT.

    Parent
    Clueless n/t (none / 0) (#92)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 08:32:10 PM EST
    If you think (none / 0) (#93)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 08:34:07 PM EST
    MMT is hyperinflationary and that government spending 'can't go on forever' then you don't understand MMT in the least.

    Parent
    I don't mean that war is the right way (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 08:08:56 AM EST
    to spend the people's money. Just that Shelby pooh-poohs civilian government spending while not admitting that it was the government spending component of the war that kept the economy moving. It was not war in and of itself that did it - it was the spending.

    What if we decided to spend all that money on something we all benefit from, like schools, medical research, trains, parks, you name it? My other pet peeve is the occasional stories that I read that laud the advances in medical science, technology, etc that trickle down from the spending on the war. If we want great advancements in prosthetic technology, for example, why not spend money on that directly? I know the wounded troops are worth it, but so are people maimed in industrial accidents and car crashes. If we wanted Tang, we did not have to go to the moon to get it.

    Parent

    Shelby is farther off the mark (none / 0) (#98)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 11:09:48 PM EST
    when he talks about 'nearly a trillion in spending' (assuming he's talking about the recovery act passed in 2009.  Over a third of that sum was in tax cuts, not direct spending.

    If memory serves, the amount was something like $775 billion, quite a bit south of a trillion.

    Shelby also missed what fellow Republican Paul O'Neill said about lots of loose corporate cash on hand.  He said there was no reason to hire anyone, in spite of the stashed cash, unless there was demand for product that couldn't be handled by a current work force.

    I would think that Shelby, who worships big businessmen, would yield to O'Neill, who was CEO at Alcoa for more than a decade.

    Of course Shelby is a Republican and the motives of Republicans have nothing to do with strengthening the nation.

    Parent

    Mankiw left the Bush administration in 2005 (none / 0) (#17)
    by me only on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 11:16:12 AM EST
    Does Krugman have any 'splainin to do for advising Enron?

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 12:00:04 PM EST

    Since he never advised Enron.

    HE was paid speaking fees.

    HE actually was pretty hard on Enron. Which sort of puts your comment in perspective I think.

    As for Mankiw leaving in 2005, I'm not sure how you see that as a defense of him.

    Parent

    He served on an (none / 0) (#35)
    by me only on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 12:45:45 PM EST
    advisory panel and was paid a consulting fee.

    The economy was fine from 2003-2005.  Mankiw did not advise W during the financial crisis.  The only person who might have been capable of stopping the real estate bubble was Greenspan.  The politicians from Frank to Bush were all complicit.

    You blame Geither, but haven't gone after Goolsbee for the lack of stimulus.  (Goolsbee had Mankiw's job.)

    Parent

    The economy should have been booming (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 01:01:46 PM EST
    if tax cuts were so stimulative.

    Parent
    I seem to remember (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 12:54:52 PM EST
    Goolsbee arguing and making simple drawings on dry erase boards attempting to get all people to understand what was going to happen to our national debt if we extended the Bush tax cuts.  He lost his fight.  Who did he lose it to inside the White House on the economic team?  Who told him his worries weren't crisis worthy enough or that they could be safely overlooked at this juncture?

    Parent
    But, but (none / 0) (#99)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 11:13:52 PM EST
    you told us spending wasn't as stimulative as tax cuts.  

    Parent
    And, I'll note that (none / 0) (#36)
    by me only on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 12:51:32 PM EST
    While this is complete nonsense,
    is utterly unsupported.  Instead of even attempting to prove that it is, you attack the source, Mankiw.  I guess that is easier and more effective than arguing the facts.

    On a lighter note, check out Posnaski (goobye to KC and LeBron).

    Parent

    I think it is irrelevant (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 01:01:05 PM EST
    if it is correct or not.

    We are in a zero bound economic recession.

    What does it matter if tax cuts worked when we are doing great?

    The point is Mankiw did what he says was best, and it did not work.  Can he explain why it did not work when he advised it?

    Parent

    Except we are not in a recession (none / 0) (#53)
    by me only on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 01:48:10 PM EST
    unless the definition of a recession has changed.  (Well, we might be in recession right now, but we won't know that for months.)  But, we have not been in recession for what, 2 years?

    The point is Mankiw did what he says was best,

    I don't recall Bush turning over the reigns of government to Mankiw.  I don't think he got the exact policy that he wanted.  The economy was on much surer ground 2003-2005 than it is today.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 01:54:25 PM EST
    Yes, that whole definition of "Recession" thing is what you want to focus on. You go with that.

    Now, I think it is interesting that you are saying that Mankiw was maybe just maybe AGAINST the Bush tax cuts of 2011 and 2003.

    Now THAT would be breaking news.

    Parent

    No, I was merely pointing out (none / 0) (#73)
    by me only on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 02:40:14 PM EST
    that I doubt Mankiw got the exact measures that he wanted.  After all Congress and the President matter.  While he did want tax cuts, Mankiw is still on the Keynesian side of economics.  He has argued in the past for dramatic increased in gasoline taxes, while offsetting that with lower payroll taxes.  Unless that was enacted and then repealed, I don't think he got exactly what he wanted.

    But if you want to go with 2003-2005 was a terrible recession, I am not sure how to proceed.

    Parent

    One size fits all for some people I guess (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 12:57:36 PM EST
    They will not allow current facts and figures, and the current reality to dissuade them.

    Parent
    Mankiw (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 02:21:23 PM EST
    is a Conservative whack job.  A voodoo priest.

    In case you haven't noticed there are a number of corrupt economists in our midst.

    Parent

    This (none / 0) (#48)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 01:26:44 PM EST
    My objection was not, per se, to the tax cuts, but rather to the fact that the tax cuts would be "paid for" by spending cuts in the following months.

    is precisely the problem with how the government uses tax cuts as stimulus. Tax cuts cannot be stimulative if they are offset by spending cuts. And since tax cuts in America are always targeted at the rich, and offset by spending cuts that benefit the middle class and poor, it's just wealth transfer to those that have more from those that have less.

    I would favor tax cuts if they were targeted at the low end of the economic spectrum, not the high end. Basically the first $60k of income should be tax free.

    Secondly, payroll taxes should be abolished as they are thoroughly regressive in nature and are unnecessary for a country that is sovereign in its own currency. Social security can be paid for right out of Treasury. There is no need whatsoever for the US government to save first in order to fund spending later because it is the issuer of the currency. That's like the NBA claiming it has to save points up first before it can award them to teams.

    Right, the payroll tax (none / 0) (#55)
    by me only on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 01:49:31 PM EST
    was targeted at the rich.

    Parent
    I never said (none / 0) (#60)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 02:13:46 PM EST
    it was targeted at the rich. That's the problem with it. What are you talking about?

    Parent
    what you did say was (none / 0) (#68)
    by me only on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 02:27:21 PM EST
    And since tax cuts in America are always targeted at the rich

    I was pointing out for that to be true, the payroll tax cut must be targeted at the rich.

    Parent

    From what I've read (none / 0) (#70)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 02:29:45 PM EST
    it's targeted at employers, not at employees. But I was referring to the history of tax cuts, which over the last 30 years have been aimed at the rich.

    Parent
    Employers are still paying (none / 0) (#74)
    by me only on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 03:01:23 PM EST
    6.2%, not the 4.2% that employees are paying.

    I guess Reagan and Clinton didn't increase the EITC.  Or is that also targeted at the rich?

    Parent

    The whole thing (none / 0) (#75)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 03:14:33 PM EST
    should just be abolished because it's regressive and unnecessary.

    Parent
    Ok I misread (none / 0) (#77)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 03:25:39 PM EST
    my first source. It seems that for 2011 the FICA tax rate for employees was lowered to 5.65%.  The employer tax rate remained unchanged, while the Social Security rate for employees was lowered to 4.20%.


    Parent
    You are right that a Tax Cut balanced by an equal amount of spending cuts provides no net Fiscal Stimulus.

    However you are assuming that all Tax Cuts will have to be balanced by corresponding spending cuts. That appears to be the message of the Tea Party, but the GOP establishment still loves tax cuts so much they will in the end always go for a deal with a 2 year Employee side payroll tax holiday (with corresponding Treasury Bonds deposited into the Social Security Trust Fund) even without any near term spending cuts : they might insist on long-term spending cuts, but the net result could still create the Fiscal Stimulus needed to create jobs. Throw in some Corporate Tax cuts (to make US corporate tax rates competetive with the rest of the world) and you would have a deal from the GOP in no time, even if this significantly increases the deficit over the short term.

    In the current political climinate I don't see any way to pass a spending based Fiscal Stimulus plan.