The dangers of deficit reduction

Joseph E. Stiglitz:  -

A wave of fiscal austerity is rushing over Europe and America. The magnitude of budget deficits — like the magnitude of the downturn — has taken many by surprise. But despite protests by yesterday’s proponents of deregulation, who would like the government to remain passive, most economists believe that government spending has made a difference, helping to avert another Great Depression.

Most economists also agree that it is a mistake to look at only one side of a balance sheet (whether for the public or private sector). One has to look not only at what a country or firm owes, but also at its assets. This should help answer those financial-sector hawks who are raising alarms about government spending. After all, even deficit hawks acknowledge that we should be focusing not on today’s deficit, but on the long-term national debt. Spending, especially on investments in education, technology and infrastructure, can actually lead to lower long-term deficits.

Faster growth and returns on public investment yield higher tax revenues, and a 5 to 6 percent return is more than enough to offset temporary increases in the national debt. A social cost-benefit analysis (taking into account impacts other than on the budget) makes such expenditures, even when debt-financed, even more attractive.

Full Story: Joseph E. Stiglitz: The dangers of deficit reduction.

Post to Twitter

Share

Filed Under: Economy - Labor

RSSComments (0)

Trackback URL

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Thom’s Blog
    Thom plus logo

    If we don't change our ways soon...

    A new report by the Royal Society, chaired by Nobel prize-winning biologist Sir John Sulston warns that world population must be stabilized and consumption in wealthy nations must be reduced or the entire planet is in big trouble. As the report reads: "The number of people living on the planet has never been higher, their levels of consumption are unprecedented and vast changes are taking place in the environment. We can choose to rebalance the use of resources to a more egalitarian pattern of consumption... or we can choose to do nothing and to drift into a downward spiral of economic and environmental ills leading to a more unequal and inhospitable future."
    This is the same warning that President Jimmy Carter gave Americans back in the 1970's - but it was ignored when Ronald Reagan came to power with a "more positive" message basically telling Americans we can do whatever we want. And then after 9/11 - Bush told us all we should go shopping and consume ever more.
    And now with corporations calling the shots in Washington - long-term sustainability of the planet takes a back seat to short-term profits. If we don't change our ways soon - and embrace clean, alternative energy and educate women around the plant - then we all could be headed for a rough century.
    -Thom
    (Is there any chance we will learn in time? Tell us here.)
  • LEGALIZE Democracy

    " We the corporations" On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. __________

    MOVE to AMEND

    a project of the CAMPAIGN TO LEGALIZE Democracy

    Help end Corporate personhood