The CBO Reports on various aspects of stimulus spending options
I have a hard time understanding why there are no negative effects. Is this a bias, or is there some theoretical reason why all stimulus spending has all positive effects?
No, this is strictly unconscious bias on the part of the CBO. If various government spending programs move growth back to the near term, then the entire yield curve must adjust a bit, and that must cause some prior bets to go negative. There has to be a temporal shift from what we previously planned for longer term and what government now plans for near term. Any shift positive from baseline implies some negative shifts.
Refer back to consumer energy consumption.
Notice the sharp rise in energy consumption on the consumer balance sheet since 2009. If the CBO gives credit to stimulus for much of the potential new growth, then the CBO gives the stimulus credit for the increase in energy share. If the stimulus did not cause negative net effects, than that share should be dropping. Energy is not a good substitute for food and clothing.
But what if the stimulus made energy use more efficient? Then we would see increased energy use higher up in the chain, at the producer level. However, I suspect that what really happened is that the stimulus had its Keynesian effect, if gobbled up the temporary bulge in oil supplies.
No comments:
Post a Comment