Michele Boldrin, Wirtschaftsprofessor an der Washington University in St. Louis (USA), macht keinen Hehl daraus, dass er nicht viel von der vorherrschenden Rhetorik wirtschaftsstimulierender Konjunkturprogramme keynesianischer Art hält:
Supporters of the plans are a minority among academic economists outside the administration: both plans contradict four decades of research and are designed to please special interest groups. But then, monetary policy and banking regulation have also shared these defects for the last two decades, so I am not surprised to see the bailout approved and hailed as the solution to our problems.
Er setzt auf Steuersenkungen,…
Tax cuts targeted on lower income workers will enable them to „save“ by paying off credit card debt and meeting mortgage terms. That will help relieve stress in the financial sector and housing markets. The one thing that ’stimulus supporters‘ do not understand is that a massive labor-reallocation process is taking place in the economy and that it is the consumption (demand for consumption) of those losing their jobs and searching for a new one that needs to be sustained („smoothed-out“). You do not sustain the consumption demand (or the credit card’s bill payments) of recently fired Circuit City employees by spending hundreds of millions of dollars in making rural Nebraska wireless! You sustain the consumption demand of those Circuit City former workers by giving them a tax break on their previous salary and on the new one, plus effective unemployment benefits in the meanwhile. So, if supporting demand is really what one needs (not obvious) the pseudo green projects are good for nothing. Cuts in tax rates of the working people are.
… hält dagegen von fiskalpolitischer Nachfragestimulierung herzlich wenig:
Question, where will they come from? They must come from someone’s savings, right? Whose savings? The Chinese’s? China is contracting as rapidly as the USA, or more: I doubt we will see a surge in their purchases of US T-bills. So, from where? From where will it come? It must come from the private sector in the USA and the EU countries, right? Good, so it amounts to crowding out saving that would, otherwise, have flown to investments in the private sector, or to consumption. It is a matter of budget constraints, nothing else. So we are changing the composition of aggregate demand, scarcely its level. Obviously, we may claim we KNOW that the new composition is better, more productive, more growth inducing than the one that would have realized without the expenditure portion of the stimulus. Do we have any proof that this is the case? Not that I know. Anything we know suggests the opposite. Hence, even assuming that the additional public expenditure generates demand for productive capacity that would otherwise remain unused or idle, it does so by reducing demand for other productive capacity that will become idle. Where, in this process, the „multiplier“ appears, beats me.