Filed under: Uncategorized
The perversity of this is that you’re really unlikely to find better times than 2009, 2010, and 2011 to spend a bunch of money on large-scale projects. Most of the time, this kind of spending would involve a short-term economic cost in exchange for a long-term economic benefit. But faced with such a weak labor market, it’d be a short-term benefit with even more benefits over the long-term.
Here’s another thing that doesn’t make so much sense to me: why are we obsessed with the idea that stimulus spending in a recessionary environment has to be deficit spending? The reason we have a recession is that the propensity to spend has fallen: consumers are hoarding cash because they’re afraid they’ll lose their jobs or won’t be able to pay off their debts, and businesses and banks are hoarding cash because they don’t see any good investment opportunities. In that environment, wouldn’t it raise spending and thus help get the economy out of its doldrums if the government taxed more of people’s money away and spent it? Obviously this wouldn’t be as direct a shot in the arm as deficit spending, but doesn’t it still work? I mean, if Republicans force the administration to abandon deficit-financed stimulus because of perverse budget concerns, isn’t the second-best solution to go ahead with tax-financed stimulus?
2 Comments so far
Leave a comment