Forget the politics - what do economists say about the stimulus plan?

[chuckakers 425]

Sure sounds like the folks that really understand this stuff aren't very fond of B.O.'s plan. Wonder how much of this kind of proof we'll have to look up before the libs finally admit the whole thing is little more than a political payback.



The Reason.com Stimulus Symposium
Leading economists sound off on the $800 billion stimulus package

February 11, 2009

Yesterday, the United States Senate passed a sweeping $800 billion stimulus plan that President Barack Obama says he would like to sign into law as soon as possible. “There is no disagreement,” Obama has declared, “that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help jump-start the economy.”

Reason.com asked a panel of leading economists for their response to the stimulus package.

Robert Higgs

1. Outside of the obvious pork and special interest goodies, what are the biggest problems you see with the stimulus package?

This legislation entails the addition of a huge increment to the burden of debt the public must bear, directly or indirectly. It redirects resources on a grand scale from uses consumers value to uses politicians value and thereby impoverishes the general public. I've written along these lines at greater length here and here.

2. Is there anything in the stimulus package that you think will work? If so, what?

All of it works. The trouble is what it works for, which is to reward virtually every special interest allied with the Democrats and to guarantee the recipients' future support for the pirates who are now sending the booty their way. It is eerily similar to the New Dealers' use of the Works Progress Administration and other big relief programs to buy votes and bulk up their political machine.

3. Obama says that doing nothing is not an option. Do you agree with that?

For the economy in general, doing nothing is vastly preferable to doing the stimulus package, but doing nothing is not a political option; indeed, it would be political suicide. Which shows that only by adopting economically destructive policies can politicians survive. Do you see something wrong in this picture? Given the dominant ideology and the political institutions that now exist, economically rational public policy is incompatible with political viability. See here. Having hit bottom, the politicians can only do one thing: keep digging. If Hell is down there, they'll reach it, sooner or later.

Robert Higgs is senior fellow in political economy for The Independent Institute and editor of the Institute's quarterly journal The Independent Review.


Jeffrey Rogers Hummel

1. Outside of the obvious pork and special interest goodies, what are the biggest problems you see with the stimulus package?

The biggest problem with the stimulus package is the amount by which it increases total government spending, the national debt, and therefore future taxes.

2. Is there anything in the stimulus package that you think will work? If so, what?

If by "work," you mean alleviate the depression, there is nothing in the stimulus that will do so.

3. Obama says that doing nothing is not an option. Do you agree with that?

Not at all. The best thing the government could do is to cut spending and taxes. Doing nothing is a second-best option.

Jeffrey Rogers Hummel is associate professor of economics at San Jose State University and the author of Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War.


Megan McArdle

1. Outside of the obvious pork and special interest goodies, what are the biggest problems you see with the stimulus package?

Even if you accept the theory of the stimulus, the package is not well-structured. A good stimulus package should be designed to move money out the door rapidly, then stop. This program is designed to move money out the door slowly, and keep going. Moreover, the vast size of the package is going to add big costs in the not-so-distant future which have barely been discussed.

2. Is there anything in the stimulus package that you think will work? If so, what?

Expanding unemployment benefits and food stamps—the "automatic fiscal stabilizers"—are relatively low cost and transparent. They target money to the people whose consumption is contracting the most, and they will naturally shrink as the economy recovers.

3. Obama says that doing nothing is not an option. Do you agree with that?

I would like to see more proof of the statement that doing something is better than doing nothing. The Keynesian arguments upon which Obama's statements are based work out neatly in the textbooks, but there's little proof that they actually make things better, in aggregate, in the real world. And the current situation is all the proof you need that there are massive holes in our old textbook models.

Megan McArdle writes about economics, business, and politics at The Atlantic.


Deirdre McCloskey

1. Outside of the obvious pork and special interest goodies, what are the biggest problems you see with the stimulus package?

It's not targeted, not temporary, not timely. Especially the last. Too slow, too slow, alas.

2. Is there anything in the stimulus package that you think will work? If so, what?

At less than full employment the Keynesian stuff works. So the minority of the quickie expenditures will "put people back to work"—until we return to almost-full employment, which will happen pretty quickly in the recovery. At that point the stimulus will merely crowd out private investment. In the short run people might get more cheerful, too, always a good thing. But in two years the recession will be over. And the myth will grow up—rather similar to the ones about FDR and war expenditure—that Obama did it. Essentially, Obama will get credit for the self-adjusting character of the economy. I reckon we should start preparing that other face of Mount Rushmore.

3. Obama says that doing nothing is not an option. Do you agree with that?

I agree on the money and banking side, not on the real expenditure side. We are in a financial panic, which happens only in a few recessions (1907, 1929). In other words, the TARP is way, way more important than the stimulus. Truly, Something Must Be Done about the banks. That's a logic of second best—the government fouled up the banking system (the most regulated part of the economy), so maybe the government should help clean up the mess. Someone needs to, and I reckon it's not going to be the Icelandic government. J.P. Morgan, where are you when we need you?

Contributing Editor Deirdre McCloskey teaches economics, history, English, and communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Her latest book is The Myth of Statistical Significance.


Allan H. Meltzer

1. Outside of the obvious pork and special interest goodies, what are the biggest problems you see with the stimulus package?

No thought is given to the medium and longer-term consequences. We are very likely to have large inflation in the next few years.

2. Is there anything in the stimulus package that you think will work? If so, what?

Yes, extending unemployment compensation, tax subsidy to homebuyers, some of the permanent tax cuts.

3. Obama says that doing nothing is not an option. Do you agree with that?

Yes. But doing the right things is the option.

Allan H. Meltzer is the Allan H. Meltzer University Professor of political economy and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Jeffrey A. Miron

1. Outside of the obvious pork and special interest goodies, what are the biggest problems you see with the stimulus package?

The package is focused on increased spending and tax cuts that fail to improve incentives. I am extremely skeptical that the U.S. has $500 billion in additional productive spending, especially if done in a hurry. In most areas government spending is too high, not too low.

2. Is there anything in the stimulus package that you think will work? If so, what?

Roughly, no.

3. Obama says that doing nothing is not an option. Do you agree with that?

Doing nothing is always an option, and in my view it would be better than the stimulus. Better yet, we should fix those aspects of current policy that ought to be fixed independent of the crisis. See here and here.

Jeffrey A. Miron is a senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University.

Michael C. Munger
1. Outside of the obvious pork and special interest goodies, what are the biggest problems you see with the stimulus package?

The creation of new bureaucratic and regulatory structures, restrictions on creation of liquidity. The genius of the American system, for all its flaws, has been that we can mobilize lots of liquidity quickly. Silicon Valley exists because you could sit down, make a pitch, and get $10 million that afternoon.

If we start governing finance like we govern universities, or city councils, we are going to lose that. Having committees, and a bunch of forms to sign off on, and stamps...Hernando de Soto wrote about systems like this. They strangle business, investment, and growth.

2. Is there anything in the stimulus package that you think will work? If so, what?

Keynes said that Y=C+I+G. Borrowing money to raise "G" (government spending) will work, I suppose. But the cost to future generations is enormous. I am amazed by the hypocrisy of both sides. John McCain calls the stimulus "intergenerational theft." Well, he's right, but he came late to this wisdom. The Republicans have been just pouring out new deficit spending since 2002.

And then Obama says he doesn't want to do tired old ideas, and failed economics. But he is doing exactly what the Republicans did: huge deficit-financed spending on largely useless or irrelevant programs designed to reward political friends. The only thing that's different is the identity of the "friends."

So, some of the spending may increase measured GDP slightly for 2009. But the price is increased inflationary pressures in 2010, and the squandering of the birthright of our children for decades.

3. Obama says that doing nothing is not an option. Do you agree with that?

This makes me furious. Doing nothing is not an option—anymore. Because first President Bush, and now President Obama, have engaged in a completely irresponsible fear campaign. "We must do something, or you should cower in helpless fear, behind locked doors, in darkened rooms!" Presidents should not use this kind of fear as a weapon to pass their pet projects. Roosevelt, for all his flaws, got it right: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Well, not quite right: it turns out we need to fear fear itself, and also President Obama.

The sensible thing to do at this point would be to make an offer, at 40 cents on the dollar, for the "toxic" assets, both the collaterlized debt obligations packaged by Freddy and Fannie, and also the credit default swap "insurance" derivatives sold by AIG (and some other firms, but mostly AIG). Since AIG wrote so many "naked" CDSs, even for people who don't own the underlying, or "insured" asset, they are going to keep hemorrhaging until someone puts a floor on the value of the assets.

So, a one-time, take it or leave it, offer. One big reason that credit markets are frozen is the uncertainty created by Treasury indecision and vagueness. Asset owners are holding out for a better price, and they are trying to negotiate through the Senate, not the Treasury. Obama needs to lead here, and say, "Take this partial buyout, or hang on to the asset at your peril. There is no better deal coming tomorrow."

Michael C. Munger is professor of economics and chair of the department of political science at Duke University.


William A. Niskanen

1. Outside of the obvious pork and special interest goodies, what are the biggest problems you see with the stimulus package?

Nothing in the package increases the incentive to work, save, invest, or increase productivity. Any spending stimulus should be limited to increasing the demand for housing, in order to increase the value of the mortgage-backed securities that are limiting the ability of the banks to lend.

2. Is there anything in the stimulus package that you think will work? If so, what?

No. Almost all of the tax cuts are welfare payments channeled through the tax system, not reductions in marginal rates.

3. Obama says that doing nothing is not an option. Do you agree with that?

No fiscal stimulus program is a viable option. Use monetary policy to stimulate demand. Consider an optional fiscal stimulus plan consisting only of selective marginal tax rate cuts and a temporary subsidy to increase the demand for housing.

William A. Niskanen is chairman emeritus and a distinguished senior economist at the Cato Institute.


Johan Norberg

1. Outside of the obvious pork and special interest goodies, what are the biggest problems you see with the stimulus package?

The biggest problem is that it destroys savings by using them on projects that the majority did not think were reasonable a year ago. We take capital that would have been available to companies and poorer countries and use it to create a stimulus that will have its largest impact after the economy has already turned the corner—so that it will contribute to another round of boom and bust.

2. Is there anything in the stimulus package that you think will work? If so, what?

That depends on what the meaning of "works" is. The tax credit will work. Not as they intended it, though. But it gives people more money, which they will save because they can see that the government is building up a huge deficit that they will be forced to pay for in the future. And then those savings will come in handy.

3. Obama says that doing nothing is not an option. Do you agree with that?

No. Every single crisis in the last 100 years shows that doing nothing would have been preferable to doing bad things. But he is right that it is not an option in the current political climate. Now what applies is the politicians' logic from Yes, Prime Minister: "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore it must be done."

Johan Norberg is a Swedish author and historian of ideas, and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He is currently writing a book on the financial crisis.


Mark Perry

1. Outside of the obvious pork and special interest goodies, what are the biggest problems you see with the stimulus package?

There are many problems with the stimulus package, but there are several that stand out. First, like all fiscal stimulus packages in the past, the current one will not impact the economy at the right time for the intended stimulus effect, due to the inevitable problems of long lags. Much of the intended expansionary fiscal effects won't happen until next year and even 2011, and it's likely the economy will have recovered sufficiently by then so that the fiscal stimulus will be unnecessary, and might actually be destabilizing. Second, the fiscal stimulus has to be paid for eventually in the form of higher taxes, which will have a negative economic effect in the future, i.e. the "fiscal child abuse" effect. That is, any positive short-term effects of this stimulus package will be more than offset by future negative effects in the form of reduced future economic growth, decreased investments, and lower incomes.

2. Is there anything in the stimulus package that you think will work? If so, what?

The fiscal stimulus will work only in the sense that it will serve to stimulate the approval ratings of the President and other politicians.

3. Obama says that doing nothing is not an option. Do you agree with that?

No. The market economy has an underappreciated, but amazing ability to correct and reverse economic imbalances and problems on its own, and that economic self-correcting resiliency works best in the absence of government interference.

Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[pirana 0]

Those are some pretty good summations. Basically we are going to fake people into feeling better and stretch out the fixed amount of inevitable financial pain for longer than it would occur in a natural correction. The price of that is the burden we dump on the rest of our lives, and the younger generation, and the plasticity we permanently remove from the markets.

I'd much prefer shorter duration of higher pain level, and also wish there was a way it could be more directed at the morons that made it happen.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

wish there was a way it could be more directed at the morons that made it happen.

$enators and Reps?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[quade 4]

You should research some of the "economists" that were quoted.

This is hardly unbiased opinion of a wide base of economists. In fact, some of these people are barely financial reporters. Others, like Higgs, the first one quoted and therefore the most likely to be read works for a big business think tank and is also associated with the Cato Institute (hardly unbiased).

Burried are people like Deirdre McCloskey. Read what s/he has to say and it's pretty reasonable. Still, for fun, you might wanna google that name. Not that there's anything wrong with it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[freeheelbillie 0]

Quote

Quote

wish there was a way it could be more directed at the morons that made it happen.

$enators and Reps?

Add Democrats to the mix and you're right...they "all" should be held accountable...

In the words of Ron Paul;

However, many in Washington fail to realize it was government intervention that brought on the current economic malaise in the first place. The Federal Reserve’s artificially low interest rates created the loose, easy credit that ignited a voracious appetite in the banks for borrowers. People made these lending and buying decisions based on market conditions that were wildly manipulated by government. But part of sound financial management should be recognizing untenable or falsified economic conditions and adjusting risk accordingly. Many banks failed to do that and are now looking to taxpayers to pick up the pieces. This is wrong-headed and unfair, but Congress is attempting to do it anyway.

These housing bills address the crisis in exactly the wrong way, by seeking to hide the problem with more disastrous government bail-outs and interventions. One measure, HR 5830 the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Housing Stabilization and Homeowner Retention Act would allow the FHA to guarantee as much as $300 billion worth of refinanced home loans for those facing threat of foreclosure. HR 5818 the Neighborhood Stabilization Act, would provide $15 billion in loans and grants to localities to purchase and renovate foreclosed homes with the object of then selling or renting out those homes. Thankfully, President Bush has vowed to veto both of these bills. It is neither morally right nor fiscally wise to socialize private losses in this way.

The solution is for government to stop micromanaging the economy and let the market adjust, as painful as that will be for some. We should not force taxpayers, including renters and more frugal homeowners, to switch places with the speculators and take on those same risks that bankrupted them. It is a terrible idea to spread the financial crisis any wider or deeper than it already is, and to prolong the agony years into the future. Socializing the losses now will only create more unintended consequences that will give new excuses for further government interventions in the future. This is how government grows - by claiming to correct the mistakes it earlier created, all the while constantly shaking down the taxpayer. The market needs a chance to correct itself, and Congress needs to avoid making the situation worse by pretending to ride to the rescue.

-Ron Paul; May 11, 2008

Gently pushing comfort zones since 1976...

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

wish there was a way it could be more directed at the morons that made it happen.

$enators and Reps?

Add Democrats to the mix and you're right...they "all" should be held accountable...

A bit sensitive to party are we?

Let me expand my note:

$enators and Representatives?


I believe that would include a sampling of dems in there somewhere.....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[freeheelbillie 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

wish there was a way it could be more directed at the morons that made it happen.

$enators and Reps?

Add Democrats to the mix and you're right...they "all" should be held accountable...

A bit sensitive to party are we?

Let me expand my note:

$enators and Representatives?


I believe that would include a sampling of dems in there somewhere.....

my bad...sorry about that.

Gently pushing comfort zones since 1976...

[kelpdiver 2]

you're a funny guy. First that BS about how Reagan shrunk the government, now a cry to forget politics, and read politically motivated reviews of the stimulus plan.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

wish there was a way it could be more directed at the morons that made it happen.

$enators and Reps?

Add Democrats to the mix and you're right...they "all" should be held accountable...

A bit sensitive to party are we?

Let me expand my note:

$enators and Representatives?


I believe that would include a sampling of dems in there somewhere.....

my bad...sorry about that.

I like writing in colors and symbols

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

You should research some of the "economists" that were quoted.

Quade - they were "leading economists", not your garden variety.

Funny how the right is so panicked that they'll do anything to try to derail the recovery.

[chuckakers 425]

Quote

You should research some of the "economists" that were quoted.

This is hardly unbiased opinion of a wide base of economists. In fact, some of these people are barely financial reporters. Others, like Higgs, the first one quoted and therefore the most likely to be read works for a big business think tank and is also associated with the Cato Institute (hardly unbiased).

Burried are people like Deirdre McCloskey. Read what s/he has to say and it's pretty reasonable. Still, for fun, you might wanna google that name. Not that there's anything wrong with it.

There are couple folks on the list that I would agree with you on, but some of the most intelligent statements came from these people, and their resume's speak for themselves.

I have yet to hear ANY names of the "leading economists" Obama claims to have consulted that say this stimuloot package is "the right plan". Not ONE!



Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Ph.D.

teaches both economics and history, and before joining the SJSU economics faculty in the fall of 2002, lectured as an adjunct at Golden Gate University and Santa Clara University. was a National Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, for the 2001-2002 academic year.

Robert Higgs

received his Ph.D. in economics from Johns Hopkins University, has taught at the University of Washington, Lafayette College, Seattle University, and the University of Economics, Prague. has been a visiting scholar at Oxford University and Stanford University, and a fellow for the Hoover Institution and the National Science Foundation.



Deirdre N. McCloskey

economics professor. job title at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) is Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication. She is also adjunct professor of Philosophy and Classics at UIC, and was for five years the Tinbergen Distinguished Professor of Economics, Philosophy, History, English, and Arts and Culture, at Erasmus University, Rotterdam. Since October 2007 she has received two honorary doctorates.

Allan H. Meltzer

economist and professor of Political Economy at Carnegie Mellon University's Tepper School of Business. author of dozens of academic papers and books on monetary policy and the Federal Reserve Bank, and is considered one of the world's foremost experts on the development and applications of monetary policy

Jeffrey A. Miron

Professor of Economics at Harvard University. He received a B.A., magna cum laude, from Swarthmore College and Ph.D. in economics from M.I.T. Research Fellow for the National Bureau of Economic Research; Associate Professor of Economics, University of Michigan; Associate Editor, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking; President, Bastiat Institute; Visiting Scholar, Institut d’Economie Industrielle, Université des Sciences Sociales; Professor of Economics, Boston University; and Visiting Professor of Economics, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. From 1992-1998, he was chairman of the Department of Economics at Boston University.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[chuckakers 425]

Quote

you're a funny guy. First that BS about how Reagan shrunk the government, now a cry to forget politics, and read politically motivated reviews of the stimulus plan.

"Forget the politics" was figurative. Check the bios, lib.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_threaded;post=3486841;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I have yet to hear ANY names of the "leading economists" Obama claims to have consulted that say this stimuloot package is "the right plan". Not ONE!

Joe Stiglitz:

"Stiglitz, appearing before a congressional oversight panel, provided a harsh sketch of the U.S. economy: millions losing their jobs and workers facing a retirement filled with 'hardship and uncertainty.' The only way to respond, he said, was an economic stimulus package with the 'biggest bang for the buck.'

"'The failure to act quickly and effectively means that the downturn will be longer and deeper than it otherwise would have been,' Stiglitz said, drawing a picture of a national economy saddled with a 'larger legacy of debt.'"

Two: "Something is better than nothing, and bigger was better than smaller in terms of the stimulus needed," said Chris Varvares, president of prominent forecaster Macroeconomic Advisers in St. Louis. "The economy needs a fiscal jolt."

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[chuckakers 425]

Quote

Quote

I have yet to hear ANY names of the "leading economists" Obama claims to have consulted that say this stimuloot package is "the right plan". Not ONE!

Joe Stiglitz:

"Stiglitz, appearing before a congressional oversight panel, provided a harsh sketch of the U.S. economy: millions losing their jobs and workers facing a retirement filled with 'hardship and uncertainty.' The only way to respond, he said, was an economic stimulus package with the 'biggest bang for the buck.'

"'The failure to act quickly and effectively means that the downturn will be longer and deeper than it otherwise would have been,' Stiglitz said, drawing a picture of a national economy saddled with a 'larger legacy of debt.'"

Two: "Something is better than nothing, and bigger was better than smaller in terms of the stimulus needed," said Chris Varvares, president of prominent forecaster Macroeconomic Advisers in St. Louis. "The economy needs a fiscal jolt."

/Marg

OK that's one, and he's a Major League Lib:

Joseph Eugene Stiglitz (born February 9, 1943) is an American economist and a professor at Columbia University. He is a recipient of the John Bates Clark Medal (1979) and the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (2001). He is also the former Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank. He is known for his critical view of the management of globalization, free-market economists (whom he calls "free market fundamentalists") and some international institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In 2000 Stiglitz founded the Initiative for Policy Dialogue (IPD), a think tank on international development based at Columbia University. Since 2001 he has been a member of the Columbia faculty, and has held the rank of University Professor since 2003. He also chairs the University of Manchester's Brooks World Poverty Institute and is a member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.

I don't see other economists lined up to support his views, either.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[Coreece 190]

Quote

This is hardly unbiased opinion of a wide base of economists.

I agree...I found this somewhat interesting:

Quote

Jeffrey Rogers Hummel is associate professor of economics at San Jose State University and the author of Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War.

Quote

Burried are people like Deirdre McCloskey. Read what s/he has to say and it's pretty reasonable.

Megan McArdle, Deirdre McCloskey, and Mark Perry all make statements about their concern with getting the money out to slowly:

Megan McArdle:
A good stimulus package should be designed to move money out the door rapidly, then stop. This program is designed to move money out the door slowly, and keep going.

Deirdre McCloskey:
It's not targeted, not temporary, not timely. Especially the last. Too slow, too slow, alas.

Mark Perry:
like all fiscal stimulus packages in the past, the current one will not impact the economy at the right time for the intended stimulus effect, due to the inevitable problems of long lags.

It seems like they would prefer burning through the money as fast as possible, where as the stimuls plan calls for dispensing the money over an extended time table...That to me seems to be more responsible/cautious.

Let's say the stimulas improves the situation, or (as it has been suggested) it just naturally recovers in a short period of time and confindence/strength stabilizes. It would seem to me that some of the stimulas funds which would still need to be allocated, could either be redirected for a more practical purpose, or dare I say even "returned?"

It would be similar to Bush allocating a small percentage of the bank executive splurge fund, to a more practical use like the auto loan that was more serving to the country, even without the country's approval!

...but then agan, like Lewis Black, my economics class was aslo in the morning:

Lewis Black - Economics Class

Lewis Black - How To Stimulate the Economy

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...