Folks are getting bogged down in the details of Obama’s stimulus bill, which is, by their own admission, neither large enough, nor well enough structured to actually do the job. Other than the obvious (it must be big enough and efficient enough to end the recession not just in GDP but in wages and employment) here’s how to do a stimulus plan right:
Buy and fix while it’s cheap
During a recession most things become cheap. If you want to build new buildings, roads, bridges or trains, you should do it during a recession because it’s going to cost less than doing it any other time. This is particularly the case for massive infrastructure programs. If you want to drive high speed trains up and down the east and west coasts and maybe even across the country, this is the best time to buy up the land and right of ways. Same if you want to improve the power transmission network. Commodities are cheap now—wood, cement, steel, all that good stuff you need for building is less expensive than it has been in ages. Lots of construction workers are out of work. Buy up the land, lay down the concrete, rails, power lines, cable or subways now. You should be building as much of the infrastructure you think you’ll need for the next 30 years now as you can, because it may be decades before it costs this little to build it. And because it will be used for decades it’s fair game to pay for it with long run 30 year bonds—people 20 years will be using it, they can pay for it too.
Provide a direction private industry and individuals can get behind
The stimulus bill and other economic policies need to show where the industry of the future is going to be, so that private actors know where to build up their own capacity, where to hire and what to buy capital equipment for. Commit 200 billion a year to a massive telecom buildout for the next 4 years, and companies are going to line up to get involved in that business. Make it clear you’re going to massively expand health infrastructure and they’ll line up for that business. They’ll make long term investments, hire people, train people and do R&D. Programs that look like they will go away almost immediately won’t make businesses decide to invest in increase capacity—it might not be there next year. Right now the only large scale project that looks really certain to occur for years under the Obama administration is a war—the Afghan war.
Restructure to allow unfettered growth in the future
The last economy cracked up for a reason. Or rather, for multiple reasons. You need to know what those are, and you need to get rid of them, so it doesn’t happen again. If you don’t properly regulate the financial industry they will do another bubble (especially since you bailed them out of the downside, so why shouldn’t they? They got the profits, and the public paid the losses.) If you don’t do something to make sure that oil prices don’t spike again (both on the demand end and in terms of reigning in speculative excess) then the next time there’s a half decent economy they will strangle growth again. There are plenty of other places where problems need to be fixed (too low corporate tax rates leading to cashing out instead of reinvestment, if you want a third). If you don’t fix them, all you’re doing is putting electrical paddles to a patient whose heart is still a piece of junk and who is still going to have another heart attack when he eats his next cheeto(tm).
Spend directly or give to people who will spend
Marginal prospensity to save is what economists call the fact that if you give a rich man a hundred dollars he probably won’t spend it and if you give a hungry man a hundred dollars he probably will. This is why food stamps have the highest stimulative effect and why tax cuts for corporations effectively have almost no stimulative effective. So when you’re designing a stimulus you want to give money to people who will spend it, or you want to just spend it yourself. And, in fact, if the government spends it it gets spent a lot more effectively in many cases. The government isn’t going to run out and buy a TV made in China, after all, it’s going to insist on buying American as much as possible. The stupider the stimulus bill for Americans, the happier foreign manufacturers will be.
Shift from low return policies to high return policies
This is simple enough. Spending money on some things gives a lot more money than on other things. Reduce spending on things with a low stimulative effect, take that money and spend it on items with a high stimulative effect. Simply ending the Bush tax cuts and spending that money on items with a decent return would be worth a couple hundred billion dollars worth of stimulus alone. Not doing Obama’s proposed tax cuts and spending that money on activities like infrastructure and expanded food stamps would likewise increase the effective stimulus by 50 to 90 billion dollars. (Shorter rule: do things smart, not stupid. D’uh.)
Doing a stimulus bill with these principles in mind would be both pragmatic and visionary. The vision comes in in giving the economy a direction and fixing the errors of the past, the pragmatism comes in because this would actually work, unlike the current Obama plan, which is insufficient to do the job on its own terms, has no vision of a future America and which doesn’t do enough to fix the problems of the past.
Related posts:
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Robert H. Frank, The Economic Naturalist’s Field Guide: Common Sense Principles for Troubled Times
- Biden to Smack Boehner Around on Stimulus
- Eric Cantor Says Stimulus Bill Failed, Except That Whole Creating Jobs in His Home State Part
- Why Can’t a Better Health Care Plan be the Next Stimulus?
- White House Calls Kyl’s Bluff on Canceling Stimulus, Republicans Whine About It





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

good afternoon/evening, Ian.
heya
Digg it here
Want three hundred billion in stimulus? Spend two hundred billion extending unemployment insurance.
Want three hundred fifty billion in stimulus? Spend two hundred billion extending food stamps.
Why is this hard for a Democratic Administration to understand? Do they believe the need is not there? Do they dispute the effect? Do they quibble with the numbers?
Compensating the unemployed victims of Wall Street greed who live on Elm Street, and providing food for their families, seems like a basic good in society. When the chart shows the outsized benefit, it’s ridiculous to think we’re not going to do it.
Where are the liberal lions of the Senate and House on this? Speak out, folks, and “make him do it.”
Obama promised change. He needs to ensure that his actions to address the financial crisis do not repeat the mistakes made by the Bush administration.
Obama said, “Yes we can.” He needs to offer a package that will be effective, so that we indeed can resolve this financial crisis.
Obama offered hope. But he had better do more than merely hope that his efforts to address the financial crisis will work; he needs to make sure that they will.
My first understanding of FDR, growing up in New York and New England in the fifties and sixties, was seeing the wonderful roads, bridges and — yes! — art undertaken and completed during the New Deal. My parents always explained, “Franklin Roosevelt built the Saw Mill Parkway” or “Franklin Roosevelt built the Merritt Parkway” or “These murals were part of the Arts administration under FDR” or “These sidewalks went in during FDR.”
What a wonderful legacy Obama could leave this country — “Obama built this SUPERTRAIN” or “Obama boosted our green economy” or “Obama got America off carbon fuels.” But it seems he and his team want to be remembered for another tax credit and some fiddling around the edges of our crumbling infrastructure.
It’s sad, really, that we won’t accomplish what we could accomplish right now. But the Shock Doctrine only works one way, apparently — the right learned their lessons from Chicago well.
We have to push and push and push, as Glenn Greenwald explained today. And these pieces of yours, Ian, are an important part of that push. Thank you!
“The stimulus bill and other economic policies need to show where the industry of the future is going to be. Commit 200 billion a year to a massive telecom buildout for the next 4 years, and companies are going to line up to get involved in that business.”
Your five points are terrif, overall. I think that emphasizing spending rather than policy and regulation, per the quote, is somewhat dangerous: Opens your argument to accusations of undermining market functions that do (or that might) work; minimizes regulatory mechanisms that can more efficiently and effectively influence capital investment and market formation (think WiFi vs WiMax as a standard). As important, your 4 other pts have the potential to channel spending along the same lines: the emphasis on spending as a signpost is unnecessary.
via naked capitalism (thanks wesgpc) from thomas palley last april:
is it true that full employment will cause too much inflation?
Yup.
I agree with this, but would add
Safe and Sane Financial Market Reform Now
(SASFMRN: pronounced SAS-eff-MIRM. I’m trying to think of a good acronym. Probably not quite there yet).
Until I come up with a catchy name, I will just assert that financial market reform must be part of fiscal stimulus, otherwise risk is too great that things will start to fall apart as soon as they are repaired.
I think Krugman’s worries about the stimulus plan is inadequate are well founded, but he views it as a particularly difficult countercyclical policy excercise that can be solved with some more macro spending umph. I think that this view may be too optimistic. The reasoning is that the U.S. economy has been shaped to run on bubbles and associated fumes and foam over the last ten years (I think it important not let end of Clinton era off the hook, so I emphasize the whole past decade). That means micro structure of economy is, to put crudely, whacked out and dysfunctional due to lack of public goods investment, and misirection of private investment into unproductive avenues.
The two current celebrity economists who have informative things to say about this are (in addition to those at FDL!):
James K Galbraith
http://utip.gov.utexas.edu/JG/publications.html
Stigtlitz popular columns
http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/f…..ticles.cfm
(though, to compensate for my ceaseless flacking for Stiglitz, I think he is sometimes mistaken, for example, his recent advice that an overt bankruptcy proceding was best policy for US auto companies in trouble.)
It’s nice to talk about good plans and programs, but I’ve become dreadfully pessimistic that anything at all can really occur unless the rot at the core of the market system — bogus accounting, short selling on Wall Street, and a fundamental revisions to the legal structures of corporations — occur either in tandem, or earlier.
You can put a colorful, cute band-aid on a compound fracture. But unless you clean out the rot, clear up the inflammation, and reset the bone, you’re wasting your time.
The best plans in the world can’t fix problems that involve terrible incentives and huge payoffs for pathological behaviors. Until those are addressed, the rest is just dust in the wind.
This explains how we got here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..r_embedded
thanks, selise, that is also the kind of thing I am thinking about.
I should check out Palley’s writings too.
No. But it will cause inflation in oil, and rule one of the last 30 years was to make sure the 70s never happened again. Until Bush screwed it all up.
Obama will likely be no FDR. FDR was from the rich elite so he could have cared less about his popularity with those of his own class, he wanted to save the country from the potential of a working class revolution. Obama, however, being from the “middle class” will be very senstive how the rich, Republicans and the corporate media think of him. It’s unlikely he will be the bold transformational President the country needs. Already he’s willing to look the other way for the crimes commited by Bush and his henchman. He’s already talking about “tax cuts.” If that’s not Republican rhetoric what is? He’s now a member of the “club” and he is unlikely to turn on fellow members.
Sooner or later people will wake up and stop buying goods made by people in other countries that now have their jobs and force the companies to start making those goods here in this country. Otherwise, the country is running on consumerism with money that has no concrete basis for its value.
Maybe they are trying to crash the dollar all together. I’ve said it before..America is looking more and more like a giant mall..with billions of franchises owned or fueled by foreign entities…and the buck stops where???
Where is America?
Think you’ll ever see that on U.S. television? Not likely!
I have an acronym for Wall Street, and Congressional types who are in their back pocket
Wall Street
Financial
Utilitarians
Create
Kaos
Supremely
for the
United
States
It’s the fundamentals that are all off kilter. If this administration does not drill into the core of the problem and get rid of it, tossing money into the same corrupt system will only let it sputter along before it finally consumes itself.
We are in a downward spiral where all sorts of paper assets have gone up in smoke and taken the value of real assets down the toilet with them.
The core of the problem is that this system is driven by credit and fees for trading financial instruments and manufactured demand, hedging risks and all sorts of nonsense.
We need to make banks very simple institutions whose business model is to lend deposits out at a slightly higher rate than they pay depositors. END OF STORY. Not a master of the universe sexy biz, but one that works.
We need to be keeping people working and producing the good and services that we need to live and enjoy life. We need to let people get rich, but tax their inheritances so every generation has a more level playing field, though even this is almost impossible.
We do not need stimulus. We need a REDO of the economic system from top to bottom.
And we won’t see it.
Now would be a good time to make a long term commitment to mass transit, green technologies, and alternate energy. Investing in healthcare makes the most sense if it is geared toward moving toward universal coverage and availability. We should invest in education and along with this nationwide next generation wireless broadband internet access. I would also up the budgets for non-military government R&D, both health related and nuts and bolts research. This research has been left to languish for the last two decades but its long term benefits are huge. And even though it would only cost a few hundred million, the government could fund students who study foreign languages. Even if not all don’t go later to work for the government, they would provide a strategic reservoir of knowledge for the country as a whole.
We also need better community planning and that means changes in zoning. A lot of development is wasteful and uneconomic. We need to think smarter about how we build.
I agree with Ian that more than a bunch of isolated projects are needed. There needs to be an overarching plan. It needs to take us somewhere. It needs to change the direction in which we have been used to go. The big areas which we have to think about are those I have mentioned above and a few others: Energy, global warming, sustainable growth, stable jobs, health, education. It would also help us if we moved to a more demilitarized more cooperative foreign policy. Of course, everyone of these has very powerful lobbies which would rather see the country fall than have a sliver of their pieces of the pie challenged.
i have no problem buying goods made outside of this country – my problem is that i object to buying goods that rely on a race to the bottom in wages, labor rights, the environment, democracy, etc, etc.
imo, THAT is the issue. and it’s an important distinction, not only because it’s the right thing to do but also because it’s the practical thing to do. if we want to fight workers in other countries it will be a game of divide and conquer for the elites and the rest of us will lose.
my 2 cents.
what, did you think i didn’t read your links? *g*
and thanks ian for your answer.
i really like this idea – would also you consider including subsiding students (maybe senior HS through undergrad?) who want to spend a year of their study abroad?
I love the language study idea.
This is really necessary, and it needs to begin in grade school.
You are probably right. It seems to me though that if this country could manufacture as much as possible and sell as much as possible here and elsewhere, our economy would be stronger and we would have the economy to really excel in the areas you cited. If we don’t make anything here anymore, because the industrial policies are to bust unions and/or ship the jobs overseas, we are going nowhere in a hurry. The only reason I’m saying force them to create industry here, is that without industry, we are toast…and there will be no economy at all to support projects that are good for things like the environment. In my little town, there are now a bunch of little businesses that are up for sale…and I’m in Texas, which is the least affected by this crash.
The world is transforming, and it is scary.
This has been the mantra of big business and conservatives for years. Somehow funneling this wealth to the rich so they can create bubbles out of it is seen by these same groups as a much better way to put this money to use. What this reflects is the shift from a work based to an investor based economy, and from a real one to a paper one. In a tight labor market wages will increase but it is all a question of degrees. As long as the wage increases are coupled to productivity increases, it’s a wash. That’s what the article you cited is pointing out. Things started getting screwed up when profits went to investors not workers and wages decoupled from productivity.
yes! And in spite of all the evidence, we are still so stupid we wait ’til high school.
we are idiots.
NO! I read my links! I meant I should research that fellow Palley, and find more about his work. I need to find a larger group of celebrity economists who are saying useful things to flack.
Stiglitz is saying some very good things now. I think it is very important for us to get the message out that the stimulus is not a cure-all but one piece of the puzzle. Most of the effects of the stimulus will end when it does. We need to be thinking about what comes next, about re-industrializing the country and returning to the real economy as the basis of wealth and wealth creation.
The thing is, we’re now having severe budget cutbacks in states like NM. They are proposing making class sizes larger, so I read.
Jane has a new post upstairs
Study abroad I would say is essential. We only really internalize a language when we are immersed in it and that only really comes from living in a place where you have to deal in the target language. Also language is more than the sum of its parts. There are all kinds of cultural clues and references which you can only learn by living with native speakers, and which for them are as much a part of the language as nouns and verbs.
i completely agree with the goal – just want to advocating thinking about pursuing it in a different way. also, when it comes to organizing labor, especially in anti-authoritarian ways, i think we are light-years behind. might be a benefit to us if we have allies to learn from.
LOL! i’m right behind you with the flacking. started reading some stiglitz a few years ago because of what he had to say about trade. but have learned to appreciate his ideas in other areas also. recently have listened to a few podcasts of galbraith the younger and like his ideas too. haven’t read his book yet though.
actually, i love to get stiglitz, galbraith, baker, krugman, roubini and probably a few others like naomi klein into a room for a weekend to come up with an alternative plan. hugh and ian could facilitate / moderate. oh, and i’d like to be a fly on the wall.
Those are good points.
Doh! Thomas Palley has his own blog.
I thought his piece was a guest post on the Economist’s View blog.
Palley wrote that piece that selise quoted at comment 8 in April of this year. So I guess another wonky economist who saw where things were going.
http://www.thomaspalley.com
Ian in the Health Care initiative that was discussed last night, one point is the pay for nursing instructors. Locally I know a lot of nurses over 50 who have advanced degrees but cannot find decent paying jobs that reflect their education. As part of that we need to pay health care teachers a wage that would draw them out of their semi-retirement and provide a decent wage.
I want high speed trains. Once you have used them…… what we have in this country you might as well go back to coal fired steam trains…..
Not to reign on your parade, Ian … but in the Restructure item … it’s reining in as in ‘reining in the horse’ (or the horse’s ass, as in the case of speculators’ excess.)
A cautionary tale: in 1964, Cincinnati’s 35-year-old bond issue finished. The money was raised for a subway system that wasn’t. About half a dozen stations were done in the central business district, and the tunnel extended north to about near the Viaduct. Moral of the story: if you start an infrastructure stimulus project, make sure it gets finished and used …
Now, another economist to read is: Steve Keen (Australian) who applied Minsky’s ‘financial instability hypothesis’ and recognised the bubble problem in late 2005.
P.S. Irving Fisher is worth some study, too. He put his money where his mouth was before the ‘29 Crash and lost the lot. Several years later, after contemplating ‘where did I go wrong?’ he had a much better analysis that’s largely been ignored.
Those who still believe in market equilibrium might reflect on the hypothesis that it’s a fractal world. Got to watch out for those non-linear equations. Computer models … feh! “the map is not the territory!”
We don’t actually want it to stop anywhere.
Right now dollar is falling because we ship a lot of them overseas in exchange for oil & Wal-Mart goods. That helps China and some other countries grow like crazy. They tend to move towards more sound more Americanized economies and possibly Democracies.
This causes Americans to buy from overseas at good prices, but our own employment begins to suck eggs and our incomes fall until our economy struggles.
Then, and this is where Bush went terribly wrong (probably for personal reasons), you don’t let this go on too long or let it get too close to the edge or you collapse.
Next step is to reverse this (to some extent) and grow the American economy like crazy while the others slow. The dollar rises. Americans earn more for producing more.
Everybody would be happy during most of the moments in this dynamic.
Keep the dollars flowing and keep people working and keep trade going. That’s a big part of what made America a nation instead of 50 states with trade barriers.
Of course, the financial market bubble was just insane and somehow our MSM failed to notice it or tell us until it had burst — and even then they seemed to NOT know what caused it to begin, grow or burst.
I would like to see Obama push for the minimum wage to be raised to $10 an hour. THAT would stimulate the economy greatly.
He talks of creating 3.5 million jobs…but what kind of pay rate?? I suspect it would be much less than a living wage…