Bad Faith Economics
As the debate over President Obama’s economic stimulus plan gets under way, one thing is certain: many of the plan’s opponents aren’t arguing in good faith. Conservatives really, really don’t want to see a second New Deal, and they certainly don’t want to see government activism vindicated. So they are reaching for any stick they can find with which to beat proposals for increased government spending.
Paul Krugman
Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Some of these arguments are obvious cheap shots. John Boehner, the House minority leader, has already made headlines with one such shot: looking at an $825 billion plan to rebuild infrastructure, sustain essential services and more, he derided a minor provision that would expand Medicaid family-planning services — and called it a plan to “spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives.”
But the obvious cheap shots don’t pose as much danger to the Obama administration’s efforts to get a plan through as arguments and assertions that are equally fraudulent but can seem superficially plausible to those who don’t know their way around economic concepts and numbers. So as a public service, let me try to debunk some of the major antistimulus arguments that have already surfaced. Any time you hear someone reciting one of these arguments, write him or her off as a dishonest flack.
First, there’s the bogus talking point that the Obama plan will cost $275,000 per job created. Why is it bogus? Because it involves taking the cost of a plan that will extend over several years, creating millions of jobs each year, and dividing it by the jobs created in just one of those years.
It’s as if an opponent of the school lunch program were to take an estimate of the cost of that program over the next five years, then divide it by the number of lunches provided in just one of those years, and assert that the program was hugely wasteful, because it cost $13 per lunch. (The actual cost of a free school lunch, by the way, is $2.57.)
The true cost per job of the Obama plan will probably be closer to $100,000 than $275,000 — and the net cost will be as little as $60,000 once you take into account the fact that a stronger economy means higher tax receipts.
Next, write off anyone who asserts that it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money.
Here’s how to think about this argument: it implies that we should shut down the air traffic control system. After all, that system is paid for with fees on air tickets — and surely it would be better to let the flying public keep its money rather than hand it over to government bureaucrats. If that would mean lots of midair collisions, hey, stuff happens.
The point is that nobody really believes that a dollar of tax cuts is always better than a dollar of public spending. Meanwhile, it’s clear that when it comes to economic stimulus, public spending provides much more bang for the buck than tax cuts — and therefore costs less per job created (see the previous fraudulent argument) — because a large fraction of any tax cut will simply be saved.
This suggests that public spending rather than tax cuts should be the core of any stimulus plan. But rather than accept that implication, conservatives take refuge in a nonsensical argument against public spending in general.
Finally, ignore anyone who tries to make something of the fact that the new administration’s chief economic adviser has in the past favored monetary policy over fiscal policy as a response to recessions.
It’s true that the normal response to recessions is interest-rate cuts from the Fed, not government spending. And that might be the best option right now, if it were available. But it isn’t, because we’re in a situation not seen since the 1930s: the interest rates the Fed controls are already effectively at zero.
That’s why we’re talking about large-scale fiscal stimulus: it’s what’s left in the policy arsenal now that the Fed has shot its bolt. Anyone who cites old arguments against fiscal stimulus without mentioning that either doesn’t know much about the subject — and therefore has no business weighing in on the debate — or is being deliberately obtuse.
These are only some of the fundamentally fraudulent antistimulus arguments out there. Basically, conservatives are throwing any objection they can think of against the Obama plan, hoping that something will stick.
But here’s the thing: Most Americans aren’t listening. The most encouraging thing I’ve heard lately is Mr. Obama’s reported response to Republican objections to a spending-oriented economic plan: “I won.” Indeed he did — and he should disregard the huffing and puffing of those who lost.
漏譯多多
| ||
歐巴馬的經濟振興方案進入討論階段，有件事是肯定的，方案的反對者因不樂見第二個「新政」出現，當然不容大政府主義主張有機會證明它是對的。於是處心積慮找碴，一有機會，即朝政府提高支出的方案猛擊。 反對者提出的反對論點，有些顯然是爛招。例如歐巴馬的八千兩百五十億美元振興經濟方案，眾院少數黨領袖貝納挑了一個無關緊要的條款找碴，稱一項擴大國民醫療補助中家庭計畫的項目，是「花大錢買避孕藥」。 貝納的攻擊，不算最糟的，更危險可怕的，是有些人明顯耍詐，用似是而非的論點，把不懂經濟概念與數字的人騙的團團轉。容我針對一些反對刺激方案者已提出的論點，為各位破解，一旦有人附和這些論點，即可寫信給對方，拆穿他們的伎倆。 首先，反對者說，歐巴馬的計畫每創造一個就業機會，要花廿七萬五千元，這是一句假話。因為計畫將分多年進行，其中每年可創造數百萬個工作機會，然而提出論 點的人，僅以一年可創造的工作機會相除。根據切實的計算，每創造一個工作機會的成本約是十萬美元，而淨成本甚至可能低於六萬美元。 第二，不要理會減稅比提高政府支出是更好政策的說法。因為納稅人，而不是官僚，更懂得該如何花他們的錢。 根據這種論調，美國應該關閉空中交通指揮系統。這套系統的經費來自隨機票加收的費用，讓乘客拿回這筆錢，應該要比交給政府官僚好，飛機相撞增加就讓它增加吧。 這種觀點顯然認為減稅的一美元，可創造的效益，要比公共支出的一美元來得高。事實上，刺激經濟時，公共支出創造的效益遠大於減稅，這是因減稅的錢，會有一大部分被民眾儲蓄起來。 這意謂，公共支出，而不是減稅，才應該是任何經濟振興計畫的核心。但保守派不願意接受這項觀念，寧可提出荒謬論點，反對到底。 最後，當有人說，面對不景氣，現今新政府的首席經濟顧問，過去端出的，是以貨幣政策為主，而不是財政政策時，也請不要理會。 沒錯，對付不景氣，正常的反應是由聯準會降息因應，並非由政府提高支出。但如果政府還有降息這項工具可用，或許它仍是至今的最佳選擇。可惜情況並非如此，美國已實質進入零利率年代，經濟形勢惡劣，為一九三零年代以來僅見。 想以舊論調攻擊財政刺激方案的人，要不就是徹底的外行，因此也無置喙餘地，否則即是故意裝傻。以上，均是反對經濟刺激方案的人所作的不實言論。 幸而多數的美國人並未聽進這些論調。最近有報導指出，面對共和黨反對以支出為主的振興經濟方案，歐巴馬的回應是：「我選贏了！」的確，他是贏家，大可不必理會那些氣呼呼的輸家。 |
沒有留言:
張貼留言