Jump to content
alienlovechild

The Stimulus Didn't Work

 Share

82 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: AOS (apr) Country: Philippines
Timeline

Is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 working? At the time of the act's passage last February, this question was hotly debated. Administration economists cited Keynesian models that predicted that the $787 billion stimulus package would increase GDP by enough to create 3.6 million jobs. Our own research showed that more modern macroeconomic models predicted only one-sixth of that GDP impact. Estimates by economist Robert Barro of Harvard predicted the impact would not be significantly different from zero.

Now, six months after the act's passage, we no longer have to rely solely on the predictions of models. We can look and see what actually happened.

Consider first the part of the package that consists of government transfers and rebates. These include one-time payments of $250 to eligible individuals receiving Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, veterans benefits or railroad retirement benefits--and temporary reductions in income-tax withholding for a refundable tax credit of up to $400 for individuals and $800 for families with incomes below certain thresholds. These payments, which began in March of this year, were intended to increase consumption that would help jump-start the economy. Now that a good fraction of these actions have taken place, we can assess their impact.

Consider first the part of the chart pertaining to the spring of this year and observe that disposable personal income (DPI)--the total amount of income people have left to spend after they pay taxes and receive transfers from the government--jumped. The increase is due to the transfer and rebate payments in the 2009 stimulus package. However, as the chart also shows, there was no noticeable impact on personal consumption expenditures. Because the boost to income is temporary, at best only a very small fraction was consumed.

This is exactly what one would expect from "permanent income" or "life-cycle" theories of consumption, which argue that temporary changes in income have little effect on consumption. These theories were developed by Milton Friedman and Franco Modigliani 50 years ago, and have been empirically tested many times. They are much more accurate than simple Keynesian theories of consumption, so the lack of an impact should not be surprising.

Indeed, one need not have looked any further than the Bush administration's Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 to find plenty of evidence that temporary payments of this kind would not jump-start consumption. That package made one-time payments and rebates to people in the spring of 2008, but, as the chart shows, failed to stimulate consumption as had been hoped. Some argued that other factors such as high oil and gasoline prices caused consumption to fall during this period and that consumption would have been even lower without the stimulus, but no significant impact of these rebates is found even after controlling for oil prices.

Consider next the government-spending part of the stimulus package. The Obama administration points to the sharp reduction in the decline in real GDP from the first to the second quarter of 2009 as evidence that the package is working. Economic growth was minus 6.4% in the first quarter and minus 1% in the second quarter, so the implied improvement of 5.4 percentage points is indeed big. But how much of that improved growth rate can be attributed to higher government spending due to the stimulus? If we rely on predictions of models, again we see disagreement and debate. According to our research with modern macroeconomic models, the increase in government spending would add less than a percentage point, a relatively small portion. The model predictions cited by the administration's economists suggest a much larger portion: two to three percentage points. Prof. Barro's model predicts zero.

So let's look at the data on the contributions of government spending and other components of GDP to the 5.4 percentage-point improvement. By far the largest positive contributor to the improvement was investment--which went from minus 9% to minus 3.2%, an improvement of 5.8% and more than enough to explain the improved GDP growth. Investment by private business firms in plant, equipment and inventories, rather than residential investment, were the major contributors to the investment improvement. In contrast, consumption was a negative contributor to the change in GDP growth, because consumption growth declined following the passage of the stimulus package.

One is hard put to see what specific items in the stimulus act could have arrested the decline in business investment by such a magnitude. When one looks at monthly investment indicators--such as new orders for nondefense capital goods--one sees a flattening out starting early in the first quarter of 2009, well before the package went into operation. The free fall of investment orders caused by the financial panic last fall stabilized substantially by January, and investment has remained relatively stable since then. This created the residue of a very large negative growth rate from the fourth quarter of 2008 to the first quarter of 2009, and then moderation from the first quarter to the second of 2009. There is no plausible role for the fiscal stimulus here.

Direct evidence of an impact by government spending can be found in 1.8 of the 5.4 percentage-point improvement from the first to second quarter of this year. However, more than half of this contribution was due to defense spending that was not part of the stimulus package. Of the entire $787 billion stimulus package, only $4.5 billion went to federal purchases and $17.7 billion to state and local purchases in the second quarter. The growth improvement in the second quarter must have been largely due to factors other than the stimulus package.

Incoming data will reveal more in coming months, but the data available so far tell us that the government transfers and rebates have not stimulated consumption at all, and that the resilience of the private sector following the fall 2008 panic--not the fiscal stimulus program--deserves the lion's share of the credit for the impressive growth improvement from the first to the second quarter. As the economic recovery takes hold, it is important to continue assessing the role played by the stimulus package and other factors. These assessments can be a valuable guide to future policy makers in designing effective policy responses to economic downturns.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3867030644.html

David & Lalai

th_ourweddingscrapbook-1.jpg

aneska1-3-1-1.gif

Greencard Received Date: July 3, 2009

Lifting of Conditions : March 18, 2011

I-751 Application Sent: April 23, 2011

Biometrics: June 9, 2011

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Ukraine
Timeline

It is a mess, thanks to Ovomit and friends in Congress we are all going to feel some real pain in next 1-5 years with inflation and taxes get ready. Thank you messiah! :whistle:

They spent all of the money already? And it hasn't helped? Wow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Other Country: Canada
Timeline
It is a mess, thanks to Ovomit and friends in Congress we are all going to feel some real pain in next 1-5 years with inflation and taxes get ready. Thank you messiah! :whistle:

Yes, it was the presidents fault that we are in this situation :rolleyes:. Way to put things into proper perspective. Your comments always incite keen discourse.

Edited by Rob and Mel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a mess, thanks to Ovomit and friends in Congress we are all going to feel some real pain in next 1-5 years with inflation and taxes get ready. Thank you messiah! :whistle:

They spent all of the money already? And it hasn't helped? Wow.

Yes, it was the presidents fault that we are in this situation :rolleyes:. Way to put things into proper perspective. Your comments always incite keen discourse.

Who, me?

R.I.P Spooky 2004-2015

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: AOS (apr) Country: Colombia
Timeline
They spent all of the money already?

Not even close.

:o

Soooo... it hasn't not worked then yet has it? :lol:

Wishing you ten-fold that which you wish upon all others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline
It is a mess, thanks to Ovomit and friends in Congress we are all going to feel some real pain in next 1-5 years with inflation and taxes get ready. Thank you messiah! :whistle:

They spent all of the money already? And it hasn't helped? Wow.

Yes, it was the presidents fault that we are in this situation.

It was. He inherited a robust and growing economy and a balanced budget. He fcuked it all up in a matter of months. Didn't you know that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Other Country: Canada
Timeline
It is a mess, thanks to Ovomit and friends in Congress we are all going to feel some real pain in next 1-5 years with inflation and taxes get ready. Thank you messiah! :whistle:

They spent all of the money already? And it hasn't helped? Wow.

Yes, it was the presidents fault that we are in this situation :rolleyes:. Way to put things into proper perspective. Your comments always incite keen discourse.

Who, me?

My bad spooky, I thought I was just quoting his text. Fixxored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the majority of that went towards bailing out banks.

Just the other day I saw a report that said they had hardly spent any money that was supposed to go towards actually stimulating the economy.

According to the Internal Revenue Service, the 400 richest American households earned a total of $US138 billion, up from $US105 billion a year earlier. That's an average of $US345 million each, on which they paid a tax rate of just 16.6 per cent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: AOS (apr) Country: Colombia
Timeline
It is a mess, thanks to Ovomit and friends in Congress we are all going to feel some real pain in next 1-5 years with inflation and taxes get ready. Thank you messiah! :whistle:

They spent all of the money already? And it hasn't helped? Wow.

Yes, it was the presidents fault that we are in this situation.

It was. He inherited a robust and growing economy and a balanced budget. He fcuked it all up in a matter of months. Didn't you know that?

But of course mon amie. He is the Messiah. Therefore, he was supposed to make all out problems disappear in less than a year.

Wishing you ten-fold that which you wish upon all others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the majority of that went towards bailing out banks.

Just the other day I saw a report that said they had hardly spent any money that was supposed to go towards actually stimulating the economy.

That's the same one I saw too. The big bank bailout was in the first package started under Bush. the recovery act is Obama's.

R.I.P Spooky 2004-2015

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the majority of that went towards bailing out banks.

Just the other day I saw a report that said they had hardly spent any money that was supposed to go towards actually stimulating the economy.

That's the same one I saw too. The big bank bailout was in the first package started under Bush. the recovery act is Obama's.

WHY W0721.jpg

Edited by Booyah!

According to the Internal Revenue Service, the 400 richest American households earned a total of $US138 billion, up from $US105 billion a year earlier. That's an average of $US345 million each, on which they paid a tax rate of just 16.6 per cent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the majority of that went towards bailing out banks.

Just the other day I saw a report that said they had hardly spent any money that was supposed to go towards actually stimulating the economy.

That's the same one I saw too. The big bank bailout was in the first package started under Bush. the recovery act is Obama's.

WHY W0721.jpg

Why what?

R.I.P Spooky 2004-2015

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...