The economic framework for austerity is getting even weaker

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,965
55,356
136
But that flies in the face of common sense. If stimulus isn't bad in the long term or short term, then why shouldn't we do it indefinitely? Does anyone really think debt can go up endlessly with no severe consequence? You said earlier that no one disagrees with the principle of keeping a fiscal house in order, but this seems to be exactly that.

Because deficit spending in good economic times is subject to what is known as 'crowding out', where private investment is correspondingly decreased. ie: stimulus doesn't do anything in good times.

Apart from the sequester, what austerity has the US engaged in? Have deficits gone down by any significant margin?

Yes, big time. From FY 2011-present yearly fiscal deficits have shrunk from 8.7% of GDP to (projected) 5.3% of GDP this year. That's a huge decrease in such a short time, one almost unprecedented throughout all of US history. Not only has the sequester taken effect, but some of the Bush tax cuts expired, the payroll tax cut expired, other cuts from the BCA took place, etc.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
A well reasoned counter-argument, to be sure.

Investment: An asset or item that is purchased with the hope that it will generate income or appreciate in the future. In an economic sense, an investment is the purchase of goods that are not consumed today but are used in the future to create wealth.

So pray tell then, what returns have your stimulative "investments" paid to the country? Certainly not physical infrastructure, "shovel ready" or not. Or perhaps the hundreds of billions in payola to profligate state and city governments is somehow going to pay future dividends, providing a revenue stream to Treasury? Was 99+ weeks of unemployment payments a shrewd investment in human capital which will enable innovation in the future? Or perhaps the hundreds of billions in equity infusions made in Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and GM will be worth trillions of dollars some day?
 

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
People are arguing that we need to cut our deficits NOW, even in a deeply depressed economy because of perceived negative effects from too large a debt load in the future. One of the main complaints is that it retards growth. While no one argues that one's fiscal house must be in order in principle, in order to make that policy preferable to the easily quantifiable damage that austerity causes now, they should be able to point to some clear benefits in the future. The error apparent in this research undermines that case.



It's always dangerous to compare individual debt to government debt. They have very little to do with one another. I think it is extremely hard to argue that current austerity measures undertaken by governments, particularly in Europe, have led to superior long term outcomes for them.

I tried to explain this to someone I know yesterday, that government debt and budgets are not the same as say a simple analogy of family debt, or a single persons debt. In fact a certain amount of debt is normal and not a crisis in government, in much the same way an individual owns a car or house and owes debt on those things, but still work on a certain amount of balancing those debts and others.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
glenn that's just not true. Just today I was driving on a bumpy cracked up asphalt road that had just been re-done a couple of years ago, when it didn't need to be, as one of those shovel ready jobs. Wouldn't that be an investment?
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
The problem with austerity is that it never gets implemented during boom cycles which essentially exasperates problems with public debt growth. The eventual end result is not pretty.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
The problem is the more debt you rack up now, the harder it is to climb out of trouble down the road.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
glenn that's just not true. Just today I was driving on a bumpy cracked up asphalt road that had just been re-done a couple of years ago, when it didn't need to be, as one of those shovel ready jobs. Wouldn't that be an investment?

I don't know, is it the Chicago Skyway? If so, that's an investment for the private owners because it's expected to create an operating profit. If you're a progressive, then an "investment" is something you want to spend money on that's guaranteed to lose money, like high-speed rail service between the massive population centers of Madera and Bakersfield.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,965
55,356
136
Investment: An asset or item that is purchased with the hope that it will generate income or appreciate in the future. In an economic sense, an investment is the purchase of goods that are not consumed today but are used in the future to create wealth.

So pray tell then, what returns have your stimulative "investments" paid to the country? Certainly not physical infrastructure, "shovel ready" or not. Or perhaps the hundreds of billions in payola to profligate state and city governments is somehow going to pay future dividends, providing a revenue stream to Treasury? Was 99+ weeks of unemployment payments a shrewd investment in human capital which will enable innovation in the future? Or perhaps the hundreds of billions in equity infusions made in Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and GM will be worth trillions of dollars some day?

Yes, it looks like our fiscal investments have given us higher economic growth and an improved debt/GDP outlook as compared to implementing austerity. I mean that's been pretty clear from the economic data in OECD countries for a couple of years now.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Because deficit spending in good economic times is subject to what is known as 'crowding out', where private investment is correspondingly decreased. ie: stimulus doesn't do anything in good times.

But what argument is there against running up endless debt as a logical consequence of never reducing deficits?

Yes, big time. From FY 2011-present yearly fiscal deficits have shrunk from 8.7% of GDP to (projected) 5.3% of GDP this year. That's a huge decrease in such a short time, one almost unprecedented throughout all of US history. Not only has the sequester taken effect, but some of the Bush tax cuts expired, the payroll tax cut expired, other cuts from the BCA took place, etc.

...and have the results been comparable to Europe-style austerity?
 
Last edited:

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
This is from an article that attempts to blame Republicans for Sabotaging the recovery. The problem is they don't know how to read their own data. This is from that article.


At the University of Chicago's Graduate School of Business, the Initiative on Global Markets launched a forum to poll economists on some of the biggest issues in economic policy. It brought together a panel of more than 40 top academics from both sides of the political divide, including members of the Council of Economic Advisers from the presidencies of George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama

In 2012, the panel was asked about the stimulus bill that the Democrats pushed through Congress against the Republicans' vocal opposition. Each panelist could agree or disagree with the following statement: "Because of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill." Ninety percent of the panel said they agreed or strongly agreed. Then they were asked if the benefits of the stimulus would end up exceeding its costs -- not an essential aspect of a stimulus package, since the goal of stimulus is to borrow growth from the future to smooth out a rough spot in the present. Still, 46 percent agreed or strongly agreed, and most of the rest said the result was uncertain; only 12 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed. Not only did the stimulus successfully lessen the pain and duration of the downturn, which was its main purpose; it also had a decent chance of being a net gainer for the economy in the long term.

A panel of more than 40 top academics from both sides of the political divide couldn't even agree the Stimulus benifits would exceed it's costs.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/23/how_republicans_sabotaged_the_recovery?page=0,1
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
I tried to explain this to someone I know yesterday, that government debt and budgets are not the same as say a simple analogy of family debt, or a single persons debt.

Okay...

In fact a certain amount of debt is normal and not a crisis in government, in much the same way an individual owns a car or house and owes debt on those things, but still work on a certain amount of balancing those debts and others.

Does not compute.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Yes, it looks like our fiscal investments have given us higher economic growth and an improved debt/GDP outlook as compared to implementing austerity. I mean that's been pretty clear from the economic data in OECD countries for a couple of years now.

Well then I guess it sucks that you have to deal with a GOP House who will discontinue your wonderful "fiscal investments." But at least you still have bastions like California and Illinois where you can stimulate away to your heart's content.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,965
55,356
136
Well then I guess it sucks that you have to deal with a GOP House who will discontinue your wonderful "fiscal investments." But at least you still have bastions like California and Illinois where you can stimulate away to your heart's content.

It does suck as it's very unfortunate for the country as a whole. I don't see what that has to do with whether or not austerity policies have evidence to support them though.
 

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
Okay...



Does not compute.

sorry, maybe I am not doing a good job of explaining.



Here this does a much better job explaining..
--------------

Whenever a demagogue wants to whip up hysteria about federal budget deficits, he or she invariably begins with an analogy to a household's budget: "No household can continually spend more than its income, and neither can the federal government." On the surface that, might appear sensible; dig deeper and it makes no sense at all. A sovereign government bears no obvious resemblance to a household. Let us enumerate some relevant differences.

1. The US federal government is 221 years old, if we date its birth to the adoption of the Constitution. Arguably, that is about as good a date as we can find, since the Constitution established a common market in the US, forbade states from interfering with interstate trade (for example, through taxation), gave to the federal government the power to levy and collect taxes, and reserved for the federal government the power to create money, to regulate its value, and to fix standards of weight and measurement-from whence our money of account, the dollar, comes. I don't know any head of household with such an apparently indefinitely long lifespan. This might appear irrelevant, but it is not. When you die, your debts and assets need to be assumed and resolved. There is no "day of reckoning", no final piper-paying date for the sovereign government. Nor do I know any household with the power to levy taxes, to give a name to -- and issue -- the currency we use, and to demand that those taxes are paid in the currency it issues.

2. With one brief exception, the federal government has been in debt every year since 1776. In January 1835, for the first and only time in U.S. history, the public debt was retired, and a budget surplus was maintained for the next two years in order to accumulate what Treasury Secretary Levi Woodbury called "a fund to meet future deficits." In 1837 the economy collapsed into a deep depression that drove the budget into deficit, and the federal government has been in debt ever since. Since 1776 there have been exactly seven periods of substantial budget surpluses and significant reduction of the debt. From 1817 to 1821 the national debt fell by 29 percent; from 1823 to 1836 it was eliminated (Jackson's efforts); from 1852 to 1857 it fell by 59 percent, from 1867 to 1873 by 27 percent, from 1880 to 1893 by more than 50 percent, and from 1920 to 1930 by about a third. Of course, the last time we ran a budget surplus was during the Clinton years. I do not know any household that has been able to run budget deficits for approximately 190 out of the past 230-odd years, and to accumulate debt virtually nonstop since 1837.

3. The United States has also experienced six periods of depression. The depressions began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, and 1929. (Do you see any pattern? Take a look at the dates listed above.) With the exception of the Clinton surpluses, every significant reduction of the outstanding debt has been followed by a depression, and every depression has been preceded by significant debt reduction. The Clinton surplus was followed by the Bush recession, a speculative euphoria, and then the collapse in which we now find ourselves. The jury is still out on whether we might manage to work this up to yet another great depression. While we cannot rule out coincidences, seven surpluses followed by six and a half depressions (with some possibility for making it the perfect seven) should raise some eyebrows. And, by the way, our less serious downturns have almost always been preceded by reductions of federal budget deficits. I don't know of any case of a national depression caused by a household budget surplus.

4. The federal government is the issuer of our currency. Its IOUs are always accepted in payment. Government actually spends by crediting bank deposits (and credits the reserves of those banks); if you don't want a bank deposit, government will give you cash; if you don't want cash it will give you a treasury bond. People will work, sell, panhandle, lie, cheat, steal, and even kill to obtain the government's dollars. I wish my IOUs were so desirable. I don't know any household that is able to spend by crediting bank deposits and reserves, or by issuing currency. OK, some counterfeiters try, but they go to jail.

5. Some claim that if the government continues to run deficits, some day the dollar's value will fall due to inflation; or its value will depreciate relative to foreign currencies. But only a moron would refuse to accept dollars today on the belief that at some unknown date in the hypothetical and distant future their value might be less than today's value. If you have dollars you don't want, please send them to me. Note that even if we accept that budget deficits can lead to currency devaluation, that is another obvious distinguishing characteristic: my household's spending in excess of income won't reduce the purchasing power of the dollar by any measurable amount.

If you put your mind to it, you will no doubt come up with other differences. I realize that distinguishing between a sovereign government and a household does not put to rest all deficit fears. But since this analogy is invoked so often, I hope that the next time you hear it used you will challenge the speaker to explain exactly why a government's budget is like a household's budget. If the speaker claims that government budget deficits are unsustainable, that government must eventually pay back all that debt, ask him or her why we have managed to avoid retiring debt since 1837-is 173 years long enough to establish a "sustainable"
pattern?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/l-randall-wray/the-federal-budget-is-not_b_457404.html

Why the federal budget can't be managed like a household budget

LA Times: The wrong budget analogy

Anyway, there is a certain amount of ongoing acceptable debt that is normal in government. It is perpetual.. as in the analogy I was trying to give with a family having a certain amount of debt within a budget that doesn't have to be paid off immediately, like a car note, and a house mortgage.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,965
55,356
136
Okay...

Does not compute.

Government debt isn't like family debt for two big reasons. First is that the government has the ability to print money and you don't. (or if you do, let's talk!) Secondly, and just as importantly however, an individual is a unit operating independently of the rest of the economy while a national economy is interlocking. ie: if you spend less money, you have more money. In a national economy though when you buy less from your neighbor's store he makes less money as a result so he has less to spend. It operates in a feedback cycle.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
Cool. So when does the $10T 2013 stimulus start? If blowing some money we don't have and will never pay back is The Answer, blowing even more we don't have and will never pay back must be a better Answer. I'm down with the Spender mantra, you've convinced me with your examples of real dollar cuts in the good times from the deficit spending we've done in alway, er, bad times. There is so much concrete past evidence of the Spender mantra working I completely have been convinced.

My $300k check is in the mail when exactly?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,965
55,356
136
Cool. So when does the $10T 2013 stimulus start? If blowing some money we don't have and will never pay back is The Answer, blowing even more we don't have and will never pay back must be a better Answer. I'm down with the Spender mantra, you've convinced me with your examples of real dollar cuts in the good times from the deficit spending we've done in alway, er, bad times. There is so much concrete past evidence of the Spender mantra working I completely have been convinced.

My $300k check is in the mail when exactly?

Why would we institute a $10T stimulus? That would lead to crowding out.

I know you're just raging because you don't actually have a coherent response, but I guess that's sort of what I expected.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Yes, big time. From FY 2011-present yearly fiscal deficits have shrunk from 8.7% of GDP to (projected) 5.3% of GDP this year. That's a huge decrease in such a short time, one almost unprecedented throughout all of US history. Not only has the sequester taken effect, but some of the Bush tax cuts expired, the payroll tax cut expired, other cuts from the BCA took place, etc.

So you are arguing that austerity works to reduce the deficit as evidenced by the unprecedented shrinking of the budget deficit?
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
I think the bottom line in this discussion is if you can continue receiving loans from China, keep that begging hand extended for as long as they let us. Twist ourselves into a scenario where China is damaged more by cutting off lending, than they are continuing to lend.

Austerity loses, GDP rises.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,965
55,356
136
So you are arguing that austerity works to reduce the deficit as evidenced by the unprecedented shrinking of the budget deficit?

No, the evidence is quite clear that austerity generally makes things worse. Had the US engaged in less austerity the budget deficit would probably be smaller at this point or at least its trajectory would be even more positive. (US growth has been a big part of its reduction)

My point was that the argument that we have not reduced the budget deficit over the last few years is wrong.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,965
55,356
136
I think the bottom line in this discussion is if you can continue receiving loans from China, keep that begging hand extended for as long as they let us. Twist ourselves into a scenario where China is damaged more by cutting off lending, than they are continuing to lend.

Austerity loses, GDP rises.

China buys US treasuries to manipulate their currency in order to keep their economy growing. We are doing them a favor, not vice versa.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Government debt isn't like family debt for two big reasons. First is that the government has the ability to print money and you don't. (or if you do, let's talk!)

When I said "Does not compute" I was referring to the contradiction in his statement. He said government accounting isn't like household accounting, and then cited an example that showed government debt as similar to household debt.

I'm not so much saying that the government compares to a household as I am saying that you can't fool the numbers. It's not like 2+2=4 for households and 2+2=6 for governments. Can the government print money endlessly without consequence? If it could, then that would REALLY be a difference; it would indicate that fundamentally government money really does operate under an utterly different set of rules.

We know from Zimbabwe that government can print money, but too much produces serious consequences.

Secondly, and just as importantly however, an individual is a unit operating independently of the rest of the economy while a national economy is interlocking. ie: if you spend less money, you have more money. In a national economy though when you buy less from your neighbor's store he makes less money as a result so he has less to spend. It operates in a feedback cycle.

I don't think I understand. I don't see the difference.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
3. The United States has also experienced six periods of depression. The depressions began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, and 1929. (Do you see any pattern? Take a look at the dates listed above.) With the exception of the Clinton surpluses, every significant reduction of the outstanding debt has been followed by a depression, and every depression has been preceded by significant debt reduction. The Clinton surplus was followed by the Bush recession, a speculative euphoria, and then the collapse in which we now find ourselves. The jury is still out on whether we might manage to work this up to yet another great depression. While we cannot rule out coincidences, seven surpluses followed by six and a half depressions (with some possibility for making it the perfect seven) should raise some eyebrows. And, by the way, our less serious downturns have almost always been preceded by reductions of federal budget deficits. I don't know of any case of a national depression caused by a household budget surplus.

So it sounds like what you are saying is the George W. Bush was making exactly the right move by cutting taxes and engaging in unfunded wars. In fact going by the fact that he is the only President to have prevented a depression after a government surplus it seems like he should be regarded as one of our greatest Presidents :D
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,965
55,356
136
When I said "Does not compute" I was referring to the contradiction in his statement. He said government accounting isn't like household accounting, and then cited an example that showed government debt as similar to household debt.

I'm not so much saying that the government compares to a household as I am saying that you can't fool the numbers. It's not like 2+2=4 for households and 2+2=6 for governments. Can the government print money endlessly without consequence? If it could, then that would REALLY be a difference; it would indicate that fundamentally government money really does operate under an utterly different set of rules.

We know from Zimbabwe that government can print money, but too much produces serious consequences.

Yes, the same amount of debt as a proportion of income means something very different for government than it means for a household. Principally, a government that controls its own currency cannot default.

I don't think I understand. I don't see the difference.

Say you owe $5,000 on your credit card. You owe that to someone who is for all meaningful purposes totally unconnected from you. (some fancy pants banker somewhere) When you pay him that $5,000, it is gone to you forever. Government debt is the collective debt of our society, a debt that we overwhelmingly owe to ourselves. To wade into dangerous "family budget" scenario, you buying government debt is sort of like giving a loan out to your wife. You might be personally $5,000 poorer and your wife $5,000 richer, but the Atreus21 family is exactly as rich or poor as it was before you made the loan. If you owe your wife $1 million your family unit doesn't care. If you owe the bank $1 million, your family unit definitely cares.

Does that make any more sense?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,965
55,356
136
So it sounds like what you are saying is the George W. Bush was making exactly the right move by cutting taxes and engaging in unfunded wars. In fact going by the fact that he is the only President to have prevented a depression after a government surplus it seems like he should be regarded as one of our greatest Presidents :D

No, as already covered, stimulative spending during periods of low employment and highly utilized capacity does not encourage economic growth due to crowding out effects. Did you not read the thread?