Skip to main content

Objecting to stimulus...where subtleties are often lost...

A friend posted this article responding to an article in the Washington Post making a case for stimulus' effectiveness when applied during times of economic malaise in the US. I often see arguments along the lines of those indicated and wanted to put down a formal rebuttal of those points here:

A short bit on each of his objections :

1) On overstating degree of unanimity, this is an extremely subjective statement. He then goes on to point out a small sample of alternative reads from economists on the effectiveness of stimulus which only stand out because they are alternative reads. The consensus is that stimulus properly aimed and timed, consistently works. If there are opposing views on that statement they are in the minority...and stating that existence means that economists are not unanimous in their agreement as to the effectiveness of stimulus in obvious and not really relevant.

2) On ignoring public choice, he has three issues:
a) timing -- The big error he's making here is that stimulus is not only about the effective injection of cash into the system to get the engine of productivity started up again. It is also about spurring the psychological changes in the populace, the workers and the employers that gets them to want to be productive again. The mental shift is a leading indicator to the changes that inspire productivity once funds are available but the mental shift alone *already starts it's own ball rolling*. This makes timing important only so far as the government is firm in stating its intentions to apply stimulus and thus inspire the confidence that then gets the productivity engine primed for growth. We saw how just the announcement of stimulus by Obama lead to a slow down in the economic collapse and now full on reversal and this is with what he states being so that much of the stimulus money is still yet to be spent...that's a good means that the stimulus in place will help stabilize things as the economy gets back on track...which is precisely what it is supposed to do.

b) off target -- It's a red herring to apply any significance to the previous hire state of individuals. Secondly, Keynes ...pure Keynesian theory is not advocated by any real credible economist...instead a hybrid approach dynamic Keynsian methods are described in the research. What he's doing here is like pointing to Newton's theories of gravitation and then beating up Newton for not predicting the perihelion shift of Mercury (which requires non linear mathematics...which wasn't invented until half a century after Newton). Just as we know that pure Monetarist ideas (Milton Freedman) are WRONG all the time we know that pure Keynsian ideas are WRONG all the time, the solution for any given system will be a combination...sometimes more or less of each. Still, in light of the importance of consumer sentiment to driving growth even before stimulus money is spent indicated in a) above...the factor of targeting is not as important.

c) The word "stimulus" implies short term impulsive injection of large amounts of cash...that's the whole point of it. It's a vague objection to mention that the stimulus is still in place years after it is announced...for reasons explained already in a) and b) above this should be expected. The main win from stimulus is how the minds of the human agents shift from thinking "doom,doom,doom" to thinking "win,win,win". Everything else facilitates this mental shift which when accompanied by real projects for people to see as a sign of growth allows productivity to return. Long term Economic collapses are more mental than monetary in causation...a monetary hiccup my trigger them but they stay because people are mentally stuck. It's like depression for an people depression is irrational sadness without physical reason...precisely what long term recessions and depressions what are needed are ways to break the mental block that effects an entire economy. Things get a bit trickier when thinking about the effects of regulation of the markets that the Fed. conducts (and have often in their blunders made things worse) but ultimately it is still about mental (banks feeling they can't or can loan due to trust in other banks being able to pay back...etc.)

3) Long run /short run trade offs: This seems to be a restatement of ideas he mentioned in 2) which itself is a shade of things mentioned in 1) ...again, so long as the stimulus applied provides the mental shift necessary to get the gears turning then it's not really relevant to argue about debt. The creation process of stimulus packages are not open ended and the debt that may accrue is known prior to the implementation...but when you are in a zone where growth is negative and falling one must take the action to pay forward some debt to get out of free fall. We can quibble over how much is needed (in fact I've often thought that so long as the perception is given a shift can be effected...see Brazil's brilliant strategy in the late 90's to break the economic malaise in their currency at the time) So it may be the case that a level of hidden actions by the leadership may be effective in getting the consumers and the public companies to change their behavior (though this may be controversial).


Popular posts from this blog

On the idea of "world wide mush" resulting from "open" development models

A recent article posted in the Wall Street Journal posits that the collectivization of various types of goods or services created by the internet is long term a damaging trend for human societies.

I think that the author misses truths that have been in place that show that collectivization is not a process that started with the internet but has been with us since we started inventing things.

It seems that Mr. Lanier is not properly defining the contexts under which different problems can benefit or suffer from collectivization. He speaks in general terms of the loss of the potential for creators to extract profit from their work but misses that this is and was true of human civilization since we first picked up a rock to use as a crude hammer. New things make old things obsolete and people MUST adapt to what is displaced (be it a former human performance of that task or use of an older product) so as to main…

Engineers versus Programmers

I have found as more non formally trained people enter the coding space, the quality of code that results varies in an interesting way.

The formalities of learning to code in a structured course at University involve often strong focus on "correctness" and efficiency in the form of big O representations for the algorithms created.

Much less focus tends to be placed on what I'll call practical programming, which is the type of code that engineers (note I didn't use "programmers" on purpose) must learn to write.

Programmers are what Universities create, students that can take a defined development environment and within in write an algorithm for computing some sequence or traversing a tree or encoding and decoding a string. Efficiency and invariant rules are guiding development missions. Execution time for creating the solution is often a week or more depending on the professor and their style of teaching code and giving out problems. This type of coding is devo…

Waking Out: A proposal to emerging ethical super intelligence safely.

The zeitgeist of Science fiction is filled with stories that paint a dystopian tale of how human desires to build artificial intelligence can go wrong. From the programmed pathology of HAL in 2001 a space odyssey, to the immediately malevolent emergence of Skynet in The Terminator and later to the humans as energy stores for the advanced AI of the Matrix and today , to the rampage of "hosts" in the new HBO series Westworld.

These stories all have a common theme of probing what happens when our autonomous systems get a mind of their own to some degree and no longer obey their creators but how can we avoid these types of scenarios but still emerge generalized intelligence that will leverage their super intelligence with empathy and consideration the same that we expect from one another? This question is being answered in a way that is mostly hopeful that current methods used in machine learning and specifically deep learning will not emerge skynet or HAL.

I think this is the …