Should U.S. Fiscal Policy Address Slow Growth or the Debt?
The United States faces two economic challenges: slow growth and
an ever-increasing ratio of debt to GDP. Many policymakers believe
they face a dilemma because the policy solutions to the two
problems are opposite. To address the slow recovery,
standard—Keynesian—economics suggests further fiscal
stimulus in the form of lower taxes or higher spending. But that
recommendation runs head-first into the economy’s second crucial
challenge, the long-run fiscal imbalance.
Yet policymakers are wrong to see this as a dilemma. The Keynesian model does not evaluate government expenditure using the standard microeconomic concepts of economic efficiency (cost-benefit analysis); rather, it assumes that all expenditure is beneficial. Some government purchases, however, are not a productive use of resources, and transfer payments distort economic incentives and thus can reduce economic output. In contrast, broad-based tax cuts, especially those that lower marginal tax rates, enhance economic growth.
The implication is that tax cuts are the most appealing kind of fiscal stimulus because they are beneficial on both Keynesian and efficiency grounds. Higher transfers and government purchases—increased expenditures—are questionable because any Keynesian benefits must be balanced against potentially large efficiency costs.
Thus the United States should cut unproductive expenditures while keeping tax rates low. A high deductible for Medicare would save money and improve the efficiency of the health care market. With rising life expectancies, Social Security is more generous than necessary to accomplish any reasonable goal of the program. Much military spending goes to programs not related to the defense of the United States. Business subsidies, drug prohibition, and pork-barrel spending should be cut.
The United States therefore has a simple path to a brighter economic future: slash expenditures and keep tax rates low. Reducing expenditures will improve the debt outlook and make the economy more productive, implying higher levels of output and further debt reductions for any given tax rates. Keeping tax rates low will improve the incentives for labor effort, savings, and entrepreneurship, which promotes a more productive economy.
Thoughts?
Yet policymakers are wrong to see this as a dilemma. The Keynesian model does not evaluate government expenditure using the standard microeconomic concepts of economic efficiency (cost-benefit analysis); rather, it assumes that all expenditure is beneficial. Some government purchases, however, are not a productive use of resources, and transfer payments distort economic incentives and thus can reduce economic output. In contrast, broad-based tax cuts, especially those that lower marginal tax rates, enhance economic growth.
The implication is that tax cuts are the most appealing kind of fiscal stimulus because they are beneficial on both Keynesian and efficiency grounds. Higher transfers and government purchases—increased expenditures—are questionable because any Keynesian benefits must be balanced against potentially large efficiency costs.
Thus the United States should cut unproductive expenditures while keeping tax rates low. A high deductible for Medicare would save money and improve the efficiency of the health care market. With rising life expectancies, Social Security is more generous than necessary to accomplish any reasonable goal of the program. Much military spending goes to programs not related to the defense of the United States. Business subsidies, drug prohibition, and pork-barrel spending should be cut.
The United States therefore has a simple path to a brighter economic future: slash expenditures and keep tax rates low. Reducing expenditures will improve the debt outlook and make the economy more productive, implying higher levels of output and further debt reductions for any given tax rates. Keeping tax rates low will improve the incentives for labor effort, savings, and entrepreneurship, which promotes a more productive economy.
Thoughts?
Thus the United States should cut unproductive expenditures while keeping tax rates low.
ReplyDeleteWhat a concept!
I generally agree, except for the statement "A high deductible for Medicare would save money and improve the efficiency of the health care market". Save money at the expense of human suffering? Improve efficiency by refusing to treat people in neeed? Is that what America has come to? I hope not, I fear so.
ReplyDeleteMick,
DeleteThis is the reason we have problems with the healthcare system today, People want it all and don't want to pay for it.
The only way to keep people from going to the doctor for a cold is to charge a co-pay that will influence their decision. How many people without insurance today go to the ER with a cold or the Flu and pay nothing? Take their kids who have a fever as they have the flu? More than you imagine.
In case you didn't know today, no one is turned away at the emergency room pay insurance or not. Is that the suffering your talking about?
No. I am aware of the emergency room policy, I was addressing Medicare specifically. Medicare recipients, the elderly and disable, would be the sufferers as they are more likely to need medical treatment and less likely able to afford other insurance.
DeleteMedicare already has a 20 dollar co-pay.
DeleteMedicaid has no co-pay.
How do you fix the healthcare system so people do not abuse it? If you want no deductible, no co-pay and they pay nothing for healthcare how do you control the unnecessary doctor vists?
We must grow our way out of this mess as taxing and cutting is not going to do it. Of course there are the needed cuts such as foreign aid and anything that has to do with the UN but we need growth. We should start by cutting all the necessary regulations and redefine "American Company".
ReplyDeleteToo many of the businesses in existence today could not start under the regulations of today. That is not to say that some regs are necessary but the bulk of them are ridiculous. One example is that people with disabilities put an undue hardship on businesses. In fact we have an attorney in a wheelchair that makes a very good living on suing companies around town. He has cause over a dozen business to close because they could not afford to "update".
The regulations vary with each industry.
Next we need to define "American Company". Stop taxing the crap out of corps and maybe they will come back home and produce their goods here. If they are not producing here with American labor and materials then they will not receive favorable tax treatment - just the opposite.
We need production so that we can have jobs so that we can have a viable middle class again.
An interesting comment. Tax corporations. As taxes are a cost of doing business and passed to the consumer, perhaps we should have no corporate tax.
Delete1. The cost of goods would be reduced.
2. As business would have more capital to invest in the business maybe it would stimulate growth.
3. Higher wages?
The question is how would it affect imports? Would we tax foreign corporations?
Lou, your premise of cutting taxes has two small problems.
DeleteThe DEMS, and the RINO's.
1773-2009
IOU... address trade practice is another way of looking at it.. we must allow American companies the ability to compete fairly for once... we also need to choose our trading partners wisely and not have anything to do with countries who treat their workers as slaves... if you like the prices brought about due to slave labor keep in mind that it creating an industry standard with reference to pay scale and total costs.. that is what we are paying for now...
DeleteAngie,
DeleteIt's all about people in this country. When Americans shop and choose foreign produced goods or goods produced here by foreign owned companies it affects American workers.
Companies will import cheap junk as long as Americans continue to demand the junk.
We do have a problem with our not so free trade agreements. Always seems to work out well for our trading partners, not so well for Americans.
Then a large part of the solution falls on us, no?
DeleteThe issue, whether we as American consumers would be willing to pay say $14 for a hammer made in the USA vs $4 or $5 for it's Chinese-made equivalent, is one that really deserves a real national debate.
The point is, we may be able do a lot to help ourselves if we are as willing to do as we say we are.
Even with a robust national discussion, I think that most would still buy the $5 hammer. As Max always points out, we all want our great way of life, but very few are willing to pay for it.
Maybe that's where tariffs/trade policy modifications come in ... Virtually all our so-called "partners" hammer (pun intended) US made products with protective tarrifs.
It falls on the US consumer as well as the elected dysfunctional idiots we elect and send to Washington. The consumer by the choices we make, the elected by the lack of enforcement in dealing with fair trade.
DeleteTime to dump the free trade agreements and change them to fair trade. You import what you export or pay a tariff. Problem solved.
I read an article a year or two ago that outlined the average tariffs that our major trade partner impose on foreign goods. India averaged 42%. China averaged 22%. Japan was around 25%. You know what the USA averaged? About 2%. That's right - 2%. Sheer insanity!!!
DeleteOne caveat: I agree with you that our trade policies need to be reworked, but my question is can America in be a manufacturing power anymore? I'm not sure we even have the knowledge base at this point. We have, after all, been de-industrializing since the 1960s.
Maybe part of the answer to that conundrum is to waive tariffs on foreign companies who open up shop here and hire X number of Americans to produce things.
Just a couple of thoughts ...
Yes, we can be a manufacturing society again. The issue of dumping needs to be addressed by a fair trade agreement. If they want to dump, no problem as long as the export value of goods equal imported value we are good. If not, we assess a tariff equal to the manufactured cost of similar goods in the US. It would force the partner to import more goods from the US or face tariffs on goods imported. Reviewed and adjusted on a monthly basis to avoid anyone cooking the books.
DeleteThere would be no tariffs on companies operating here unless they imported the materials and assembled here then the import clause would be in force.
I will be in favor of ending corporate taxes the minute they are no longer allowed to lobby the government. They are NOT people too.
DeleteI will be in favor of that the moment Unions can no longer lobby the government. The Union is not people either.
DeleteCan you point to some major break unions have gotten lobbying government Lou? At best, they are just another money funnel to support Democratic candidates. Here is an interesting chart http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/01/asdf_30.html
DeleteSo, I take you are just dismissing what I'm saying because you don't like unions?
The unions have been finding campaigns forever as corporations can not do. The recent Michigan election, the recall election in Wisconsin are perfect examples of union spending to move the election in their direction. Both failed.
DeleteThe NLRB are perfect examples of the government giving the unions a say in government. Think back to the recent case with the new Boeing plant.
I do not care for unions however, if unions can pour money into an election business should be able to do the same.
"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation...
ReplyDeleteOne is by sword...
The other is by debt."
John Adams 1826
What coincidence.
ReplyDeleteYesterday you suggested Hamilton deserved the bullet from Aaron Burr. Today you quote his bitter rival ADAMS, (another hero of mine) perhaps forgetting that Hamilton was the first and perhaps the most successful Sec Treasury your nation has seen. The other standout was the Jackson administration where for the first and only time in your history the national debit was cleared. Albeit, only for one year. By the way I agree with John Adams
Cheers from Aussie