That could be because the papers linked to are quite long and needed thorough reading. Even so, nevermind has nailed it. Jeff has misrepresented small parts of these papers or, more generously, been selective about the bits he's quoted in the OP, probably due to confirmation bias.
Nevertheless, Taylor's analysis is interesting.
He does seem to come out against tax rebates. His conclusion that tax rebates were largely saved by individuals and families, and that federal government increased purchases by "an immaterial amount" and "State and local governments used the stimulus grants to reduce their net borrowing (largely by acquiring more financial assets) rather than to increase expenditures, and they shifted expenditures away from purchases toward transfers" rather re-inforces my view that this spending should have been on infrastructure and capital projects, rather than acquiring more financial assets, or giving tax cuts/rebates/credits which were then saved or used to reduce levels of debt.
I quote his penultimate paragraph:
Others argue that the stimulus was too small, but the results do not lend support to that view either. Using the estimated equations, a counterfactual simulation of a larger stimulus package—with the proportions going to state and local grants, federal purchases, and transfers to individual the same as in ARRA—would show little change in government purchases or consumption, as the temporary funds would be largely saved. Of course, the story would be different for a stimulus program designed more effectively to increase purchases, but it is not clear that such a program would be politically or operationally feasible.
When I have time I shall read around this particular area rather more: as I am of the opinion that this debate ain't over yet by a long way. I'm sure Joe the Stig has an opinion. :)
no subject
Nevertheless, Taylor's analysis is interesting.
He does seem to come out against tax rebates. His conclusion that tax rebates were largely saved by individuals and families, and that federal government increased purchases by "an immaterial amount" and "State and local governments used the stimulus grants to reduce their net borrowing (largely by acquiring more financial assets) rather than to increase expenditures, and they shifted expenditures away from purchases toward transfers" rather re-inforces my view that this spending should have been on infrastructure and capital projects, rather than acquiring more financial assets, or giving tax cuts/rebates/credits which were then saved or used to reduce levels of debt.
I quote his penultimate paragraph:
Others argue that the stimulus was too small, but the results do not lend support to that view either. Using the estimated equations, a counterfactual simulation of a larger stimulus package—with the proportions going to state and local grants, federal purchases, and transfers to individual the same as in ARRA—would show little change in government purchases or consumption, as the temporary funds would be largely saved. Of course, the story would be different for a stimulus program designed more effectively to increase purchases, but it is not clear that such a program would be politically or operationally feasible.
When I have time I shall read around this particular area rather more: as I am of the opinion that this debate ain't over yet by a long way. I'm sure Joe the Stig has an opinion. :)