The Reality-Based Community

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  • Home
  • About
  • Cannabis Science & Policy Summit
  • MJ Legalization: The Book
  • BOTEC Analysis
You are here: Home / What Part of C + I + G doesn’t the NY Times Understand?

What Part of C + I + G doesn’t the NY Times Understand?

January 30, 2009 By Quincy Adams

Answer: All of it?

Don’t they have anyone on staff besides Paul Krugman who has taken Economics 1?

From the paper of record’s “News Analysis” piece on the stimulus, today, entitled “Components of Stimulus Vary in Speed and Efficiency:”

Then there is the risk that the projects themselves have little or no long-term economic value and simply drive up the budget deficit. Democrats bowed to Republican pressure on Tuesday and stripped from the bill a $200 million provision for National Mall restorations.

Let’s be clear — long term value is a nice two-fer, and important to increasing the potential of the economy after recovery, but it has NOTHING to do with stimulus per se. During a severe recession, a make-work stimulus can REDUCE the budget deficit if it gets the economy going.

All you want is to add to domestic final demand. If you get people to consume domestically produced goods, that is C (consumption). If the government spends directly, that is G. If somehow you convince business to imagine that there will be final demand for its products enough for it to invest in new capacity or innovation, and credit is available and cheap, that is I. The sum is final demand. If you’re generous and worried about the global economy and not just the US, then maybe you don’t worry about whether the money “leaks” to our trading partners.

Sod (and other repairs) on the Mall is G. It adds to final demand directly. Then all contractors and laborers who are paid spend money they wouldn’t otherwise, producing the “multiplier effect” (because the economy is well below full employment, the multiplier is greater than one — at full employment the Fed acts to slow the economy and the multiplier can be zero). So if the money is spent during the recession, it stimulates. Even if the sod only lasts a month.

Yes it’s much better if the sod is something of real value and obviates later expenditure or lowers the cost of some important other activity, and increases the full employment potential of the economy (like productive investment in infrastructure and human capital). But this is good policy for the long term, and separable from the question of what’s an effective short-term stimulus.

Was that so hard? Can’t Larry Summers have the President say this?

The author also addresses “automatic stabilizers” such as unemployment insurance and food stamps (and medicaid and the progressive tax system) but completely misses the point that because of how many of these programs are financed and the reality of the State government budget constraint, they are not at all as automatic as they should be (or as they used to be). Budget support to states and localities is probably the surest and fastest mechanism for saving jobs, and if it’s slow in getting there it’s for technical reasons that can be overcome.

Finally, thirty-five years ago it was common parlance among economists that there should be a list of government projects fully designed and ready to go (“shovel ready” in today’s terms) to aid in macroeconomic management. How fast you can spend money is not a physics constant, it’s a result of policy. The Bush administration has prepared for the current recession about as effectively as it dealt with Katrina.

Update A reader takes me to task for my rhetoric about only Krugman at the Times having taken Ec 1; in particular this reader likes the work of David Leonhardt. My point was if the Times has economics knowledge on staff, why isn’t this reflected in the analysis it publishes?

Update Another reader picked up my reference to a shelf of ready-to-go public investment projects and discusses a 1921 bill “To prepare for future cyclical periods of depression and unemployment by systems of public works.” I had been too lazy to look into the history of this idea.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Economics

Popular Posts of the Week

  • Advice to Alex M
  • Unlearning How White People Ask Personal Questions
  • Television Was Not Always a Vast Wasteland
  • The Secret Dubbing of Audrey Hepburn in My Fair Lady
  • Witnessing Violence and Death: What Happens to People and How Can They Be Helped?

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • The Belgravia Dispatch
  • Brad DeLong
  • Cop in the ‘hood
  • Crooked Timber
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Echidne of the Snakes
  • Firedoglake
  • A Fistful of Euros
  • Healthinsurance.org Blog
  • Horizons
  • How Appealing
  • The Incidental Economist
  • Informed Comment — Juan Cole
  • Jonathan Bernstein
  • Kevin Drum
  • Marginal Revolution – Tyler Cowen
  • Marijuana Monitor
  • The Moderate Voice
  • Obsidian Wings
  • Patheos
  • Philosoraptor
  • Plato o Plomo – Alejandro Hope
  • Political Animal
  • Politics Upside Down
  • Progressive Blog Digest
  • Progressive Blue
  • Slacktivist
  • Snopes
  • Strange Doctrines
  • Ta-Nehisi Coates
  • The Volokh Conspiracy (Washington Post)
  • Vox Pop

Recent Posts

  • Television Was Not Always a Vast Wasteland
  • Home
  • “I take it the answer is: ‘No comment’?”
  • There’s ordinary genius. Then there’s this video
  • The libertine’s one-way ticket from Prague

Archives

Topic Areas

Copyright © 2017 The Reality-Based Community  •  Designed & Developed by ReadyMadeWeb LLC