Stimulus? Still a failure.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The failure of the stimulus isn't exactly news, and hasn't been for some time. Thankfully, more and more people are getting on board.

For instance, it looks like we might not have needed it to begin with. Granted, since stimulus of this nature doesn't work, we never need it, but the justification for it isn't so strong anymore:

"We had to hit the ground running and do everything we could to prevent a second Great Depression," Obama told supporters last week.

...

IBD reviewed records of economic forecasts made just before Obama signed the stimulus bill into law, as well as economic data and monthly stimulus spending data from around that time, and reviews of the stimulus bill itself.

The conclusion is that in claiming to have staved off a Depression, the White House and its supporters seem to be engaging in a bit of historical revisionism.

...

The argument is often made that the recession turned out to be far worse than anyone knew at the time. But various indicators show that the economy had pretty much hit bottom at the end of 2008 — a month before President Obama took office.

Stanford's John Taylor showed us that tax credits and directed spending was fairly worthless:

Individuals and families largely saved the transfers and tax rebates. The federal government increased purchases, but by only an immaterial amount. 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.

Some argue that the economy would have been worse off without these stimulus packages, but the results do not support that view.

Even Harvard's Robert Barro is on board to an extent. While he has yet to come around on the fact that stimulus has not ever been shown to work, he's at least noting that the merits of spending need to be more important than the stimulating impact:

"In the long run you have got to pay for it. The medium and long-run effect is definitely negative. You can't just keep borrowing forever. Eventually taxes are going to be higher, and that has a negative effect," he said.

"The lesson is you want government spending only if the programmes are really worth it in terms of the usual rate of return calculations. The usual kind of calculation, not some Keynesian thing. The fact that it really is worth it to have highways and education. Classic public finance, that's not macroeconomics."

With murmurings that we may need a second stimulus, the question remains as to why we'd pursue such a thing given the track record of the first. At this point, if you're still a proponent of Keynesian-style stimulus, why? What will it take to convince you that it will not succeed?

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And when you're claiming that FDR and Stalin's administrative styles are similar to any great degree, I'm just going to note that Stalin depended heavily on Lavrenti Beria and on Yezhov before him, and that the Soviet state was a terror-state, dependent on the backhand to control its people. The USA of WWII had segregation and internment camps, but was a democratic society that held elections in the middle of a war.

If there's no NKVD in the WWII USA that in itself immediately makes Rooseveltian USA and Stalinist Russia night and day. They were never similar, and your myopic insistence that they were is the problem. You say that it's not claiming they were identical, but in reality, in my world where words mean what they mean, not what you want them to mean, the claim that Roosevelt and Stalin were similar means that you consider the New Deal equivalent to the Holodomor and the NVKD's murder squads.