TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum  

Go Back   TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum » Main Forum » Politics

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 19-06-10, 10:13 AM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default The price of economic posturing


The price of economic posturing


It lacks the hypocrisy of its US cousin, but German deficit hawkery is equally misguided and dangerous


o Paul Krugman in Berlin
o guardian.co.uk, Friday 18 June 2010 20.59 BST


Suddenly creating jobs is out, inflicting pain is in. Condemning deficits and refusing to help a still struggling economy has become the new fashion everywhere – including the United States, where 52 senators voted against extending aid to the unemployed despite the highest rate of long-term joblessness since the 1930s.

Many economists, myself included, regard this turn to austerity as a huge mistake. It raises memories of 1937, when FDR's premature attempt to balance the budget helped plunge a recovering economy back into severe recession. And here in Germany a few scholars see parallels to the policies of Heinrich Brόning, the chancellor from 1930 to 1932, whose devotion to financial orthodoxy ended up sealing the doom of the Weimar Republic.

But despite these warnings, the deficit hawks are prevailing in most places – and nowhere more than in Germany, where the government has pledged €80bn in tax increases and spending cuts even though the economy continues to operate far below capacity.

What's the economic logic behind the government's moves? The answer, as far as I can tell, is that there isn't any. Press German officials to explain why they need to impose austerity on a depressed economy, and you get rationales that don't add up. Point this out, and they come up with different rationales, which also don't add up. Arguing with German deficit hawks feels more than a bit like arguing with US Iraq hawks in 2002: they know what they want to do, and every time you refute one argument, they just come up with another.

Here's roughly how the typical conversation goes (this is based both on my own experience and that of other American economists).

German hawk: "We must cut deficits immediately, because we have to deal with the fiscal burden of an ageing population."

Ugly American: "But that doesn't make sense. Even if you manage to save 80 billion euros – which you won't, because the budget cuts will hurt your economy and reduce revenues – the interest payments on that much debt would be less than a tenth of a per cent of your GDP. So the austerity you're pursuing will threaten economic recovery while doing next to nothing to improve your long-run budget position."

German hawk: "I won't try to argue the arithmetic. You have to take into account the market reaction."

Ugly American: "But how do you know how the market will react? And anyway, why should the market be moved by policies that have almost no impact on the long-run fiscal position?"

German hawk: "You just don't understand our situation."

The key point is that while the advocates of austerity pose as hardheaded realists, doing what has to be done, they can't and won't justify their stance with actual numbers – because the numbers do not, in fact, support their position. Nor can they claim that markets are demanding austerity. On the contrary, the German government remains able to borrow at rock-bottom interest rates.

So the real motivations for their obsession with austerity lie somewhere else. In America, many self-described deficit hawks are hypocrites, pure and simple: they are eager to slash benefits for those in need, but their concerns about red ink vanish when it comes to tax breaks for the wealthy. Thus Senator Ben Nelson, who sanctimoniously declared that we can't afford $77bn in aid to the unemployed, was instrumental in passing the first Bush tax cut, which cost a cool $1.3tn.

German deficit hawkery seems more sincere. But it still has nothing to do with fiscal realism. Instead, it's about moralising and posturing. Germans tend to think of running deficits as being morally wrong, while balancing budgets is considered virtuous, never mind the circumstances or economic logic. "The last few hours were a singular show of strength," declared Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, after a special cabinet meeting agreed on the austerity plan. And showing strength – or what is perceived as strength – is what it's all about.

There will, of course, be a price for this posturing. Only part of that price will fall on Germany: German austerity will worsen the crisis in the euro area, making it that much harder for Spain and other troubled economies to recover. Europe's troubles are also leading to a weak euro, which perversely helps German manufacturing, but also exports the consequences of German austerity to the rest of the world, including the United States.

But German politicians seem determined to prove their strength by imposing suffering – and politicians around the world are following their lead.

How bad will it be? Will it really be 1937 all over again? I don't know. What I do know is that economic policy around the world has taken a major wrong turn, and that the odds of a prolonged slump are rising by the day.

The price of economic posturing | Paul Krugman | Comment is free | The Guardian
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 19-06-10, 12:39 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

I like Krugman a lot and respect his opinions. Indeed, most of the time, I agree with him. After all, he is a figure-head in my favourite macro-economic school...

BUT... "Even if you manage to save 80 billion euros – which you won't, because the budget cuts will hurt your economy and reduce revenues – the interest payments on that much debt would be less than a tenth of a per cent of your GDP. So the austerity you're pursuing will threaten economic recovery while doing next to nothing to improve your long-run budget position."

AND... "In America, many self-described deficit hawks are hypocrites, pure and simple: they are eager to slash benefits for those in need, but their concerns about red ink vanish when it comes to tax breaks for the wealthy. Thus Senator Ben Nelson, who sanctimoniously declared that we can't afford $77bn in aid to the unemployed, was instrumental in passing the first Bush tax cut, which cost a cool $1.3tn."

... are not entirely truthful exposition of the other side's ideas. First, the idea that interest payments will be small is dependent on interest rates staying low in the future. Japan has managed a 200% GDP debt load partly thanks to this. But if interest rates rise, even a tiny wheeny bit, that load is going to crush their budget something dreadful. Not just Greek-like. But far far worst.

With regards to tax breaks and all, I agree with Krugman overall but it is true that the relationship between taxes and growth isn't all that simple. For example, if specific tax breaks do simulate the economy, then they do pay for themselves. Ditto budget cuts. Yes, that's automatically less spending so less growth but, if they simulate the economy, then, it's all good nonetheless.

What was really objectional about Bush tax breaks is that they were most likely unhelpful to the economy. Taxes on small entrepreneurs are, I suspect, rather bad. Because guys owning a small business will want to fund a given lifestyle, they'll cut investment/hiring rather than invest at the expense of their profit. But tax breaks for billionaires? That's ridiculous. These guys won't change their behaviour one iota whether they get a few more or a few less billions...
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 19-06-10, 01:32 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais View Post
With regards to tax breaks and all, I agree with Krugman overall but it is true that the relationship between taxes and growth isn't all that simple. For example, if specific tax breaks do simulate the economy, then they do pay for themselves. Ditto budget cuts. Yes, that's automatically less spending so less growth but, if they simulate the economy, then, it's all good nonetheless.
Sure, but as was also pointed out recently, if youcut, and the cut reduces growth, then the deficit becomes proportionally larger, which means you have to cut more, which means it gets larger still...
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 19-06-10, 04:18 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

Originally Posted by contracycle View Post
Sure, but as was also pointed out recently, if youcut, and the cut reduces growth, then the deficit becomes proportionally larger, which means you have to cut more, which means it gets larger still...
Sure, that's possible, if there are no other engines of growth but gvt spending... It thus remain a question of what do you cut just as it is a question of what tax get cut. Not all budget cuts and not all tax cuts are equal, far from it, when it comes to their effect on growth...

In the UK, we were mentioning the Defense sector and, frankly, I think that the impact on growth is rather negligeable according to quite a few economists. Hence, you could fairly safely cut in there... Sure, some people would still lose their jobs and you might lose a sliver of economic growth but the reduced deficit load might compensate...

All I was pointing out is that, actually, contrary to the tone of the OP, it is a balancing act and, while you can certainly run a deficit and get a keynesian boost to smooth things over, you cannot run deficits forever. So it's all about how much cuts and when... Krugman wants gvts to keep going for a while longer, fiscal conservatives the world over are a bit more nervous. It might be a matter of temperament more than actual econometric data. Unless Krugman got some hidden proof of what he is saying...
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 19-06-10, 04:23 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

FWIW, the general impression amongst many economists/analysts is that the US recovery is sustainable. It's not going to be much fun as consumption is going to be lower for the next 10 years (savings going up) so 'trend' GDP growth is going to be lower than in the last 10-20 years. Unless, by some miracle, we get salary growth despite high unemployment rate - Which is very unlikely.

Europe is more problematic coz our banks are still extremely weak. They were more geared up than their US counterparts and have raised less fresh capital, it seems. And they are invested pretty big in PIIGS debt...
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 19-06-10, 04:28 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais View Post
All I was pointing out is that, actually, contrary to the tone of the OP, it is a balancing act
It seems to me that the OP was indeed saying that it was a balancing act, and that a one-size-fits-all policy was therefore misguided.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 20-06-10, 02:07 PM
insignificant data point
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,799
Default

Quote:
It seems to me that the OP was indeed saying that it was a balancing act, and that a one-size-fits-all policy was therefore misguided.
Good.

Quote:
if youcut, and the cut reduces growth, then the deficit becomes proportionally larger, which means you have to cut more, which means it gets larger still...
So it's clear to you that this is a balancing act?
Reply With Quote
Reply


(View-All Members who have read this thread : 8
a-non-y-mouse, contracycle, Francois Cellier, FredFredson, Gilles de Rais, Iolo, roadkill, Zichao
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0