ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax
SHARE
Mr. Kling,
I've been following your blog for a short time and I have to thank you for you contribution to the 'debate.' Of course, 'debate' implies two parties exchanging differing ideas. I don't see many opposing views being given much air time. That's another topic.
Your 4th paragraph is identical to what I've been saying to my friends/colleagues since the Stimulus ideas was floated. "You wanna help now -- you gotta do something now." No one really listened then and no one's really listening now.
Time will prove you're correct. When the next Bubble begins, these backended stimuli will just add to the newest layer of froth we've created.
Good work, keep it up!
Best,
Wil
Why would a one-time boost in spending work any better than a one-time cut in taxes?
ARNOLD: Why not suspend both sides of the payroll tax? Households have too much nominal debt, which is why they are cutting back on spending?
Or do you think they should just go an "recalculate amongst themselves" at 10% unemployment and rising?
If we try to address the weak economy of 2009, and the likely weak economy of 2010, by enacting a big spending boost for 2012 and 2013, that would not be good policy. I hope we can all agree on that.
Good luck even making this part of the conversation.
The public discussion (if you want to call it that) about the recession, bailouts, and stimulus is totally disheartening. I'd like to be upbeat about the future of the U.S., but the most optimistic point of view I can must is that there is a lot of ruin in a country. I'd like to hear someone (maybe Bryan?) explain why this enormous lurch toward statism really isn't that bad.
It's a bit difficult to recalculate when small biz does not have the credit lines to get things done:
"Small business loans are hard to find, and credit-card lines (a critical funding source to small businesses) have been cut by 25% since last year."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574445470989162030.html
Looks like we are trying to help everybody except for the folks that actually create jobs.
Better to have a temporary cut (say 12 months) in sales/excise taxes, with the Feds making up the difference. That stimulates demand immediately, benefits literally everyone, doesn't impeded the movement of resources to their new homes, and doesn't allow Congress to play favorites.
The difference in bank capital requirement between an unrated client and an AAA is 6.4 percent, which at a capital cost of 15 percent, results in 1 percent a year. And so, in “the land of the brave”, there is a 1 percent tax on perceived default risk! Do the regulatory wimps really believe that creating jobs and moving the world forward is a risk free affair? http://bit.ly/yL87A
[Comment removed for supplying false email address. Email the webmaster@econlib.org to request restoring your comment privileges. A valid email address is required to post comments on EconLog.--Econlib Ed.]
Call me cynical, but I think the Obama administration may have calculated time into their stimulus suggestion after all. A big boost in the economy at 2012 would certainly help Obama win in re-election, or at least one would think.