Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Stimulus- Part I

The president elect is just revealing his plans for his first important legislation: the stimulus. And I am afraid it is poorly designed, at least at first glance.
Lets start with the tax cuts: 40% of the package to draw "considerable" GOP support. For starters, despite all the ramblings of conservative intellectuals on the vices of government spending and the virtues of tax cuts, it is indisputable that the multiplier effect on the economy by spending is greater. A conservative (no pun intended!!) value of the multiplier would be 1.2. This is assuming that most spending is pork, useless etc.
For tax cuts, the best case is a multiplier of 1. Why? For one, when people get tax cuts, they dont spend in times of crisis. They use it to draw down debt (pay it off), and spend on essential commodities. Not blaming the consumer, for whom it makes perfect sense, but a poor stimulus. If you wanted further proof, just look at the stimulus passed in 2008. The economy recovered for one quarter and then anemically shut down. Now, this was at a time when people where still optimistic. Anyone bets that times are better now???
Business tax breaks, as suggested add little as incentive. By allowing losses offset with past taxes, you are merely transferring wealth. What stimulus is that?
This is not to suggest that all tax breaks are bad, or that the stimulus should avoid them. Indeed this much better than Bush's tax cuts for those who dint need them and were not even asking for one. I will address this issue and the politics behind it in detail in the next post.

5 comments:

  1. True indeed. But isn't the government aware of this already? I mean, you have to relieve people of their misery first before they even start thinking about spending... and I somehow feel that this is package is rather politically correct, as Obama wants to portray that the government wants to reach out to the people and not just bail out the companies...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Please mention which country you are talking about even though it might be obvious!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Agree with you to an extent...The real issue howver is the issue of Job Creation and the large focus on creating more jobs. People get largely over valued because of this..this over valuation leads to over valuation in the credit market and artificial creation of funds..I would rather go for a sound social welfare policy and a real job creation scenario based on fundamental demand and real talent value..the social welfare scenario will then truly reflect the human resource value of any economy...

    ReplyDelete
  4. good decision. better for you also so that u can document ur opinions rather than have it as a status msg and forget it.
    And yeah the status msgs were getting too long :P
    Best wishes
    RK

    ReplyDelete
  5. Could you elaborate on your suggestion to Nationalize Banks? Isn't it against the very core of Capitalism?

    ReplyDelete