18 Chapter 18: Six Debates over Macroeconomic Policy 1

18 Chapter 18: Six Debates over Macroeconomic Policy 1

Debate #1 1. Should monetary and fiscal policymakers try to stabilize the economy? Changes in aggregate demand and aggregate supply – Short-run fluctuations in production and employment Monetary and fiscal policy – Can shift aggregate demand – Influence these fluctuations 2

Debate #1 Pro: policymakers should try to stabilize the economy When aggregate demand is too small – High unemployment – Policymakers Boost government spending Cut taxes Expand the money supply 3

Debate #1 Pro: policymakers should try to stabilize the economy When aggregate demand is excessive – High inflation – Policymakers Cut government spending Raise taxes Reduce the money supply – More stable economy, benefits everyone 4

Debate #1 Con: policymakers should not try to stabilize the economy Monetary and fiscal policy – Do not affect the economy immediately – Work with a long lag Monetary policy – about 6 months Fiscal policy – long political process, it can take years – Economic forecasting is highly imprecise 5

Debate #1 Con: policymakers should not try to stabilize the economy Policymakers trying to stabilize the economy – Can do just the opposite – Economic conditions can easily change 6

Debate #1 7

Debate #2 2. Should the government fight recessions with spending hikes rather than tax cuts? President George W. Bush, 2001 – Economy was slipping into a recession – Cutting tax rates President Barack Obama, 2009 – Economy –worst recession in many decades – Stimulus package – tax reductions and substantial increases in government spending 8

Debate #2 Pro: the government should fight recessions with spending hikes Fundamental problem during recessions – Inadequate aggregate demand Key to ending recessions – Restore aggregate demand to a level consistent with full employment 9

Debate #2 Pro: the government should fight recessions with spending hikes Monetary policy – First line of defense - economic downturns – Increasing the money supply Reduces interest rates Reduce the cost of borrowing Increased spending on investment Increased aggregate demand 10

Debate #2 Pro: the government should fight recessions with spending hikes Fiscal policy – Cutting taxes Increased household disposable income Increase spending on consumption – Increased government spending Adds directly to aggregate demand 11

Debate #2 Pro: the government should fight recessions with spending hikes Fiscal policy – Multiplier effects Higher aggregate demand - Higher incomes Induces additional consumer spending Further increases in aggregate demand – Particularly useful when the tools of monetary policy lose their effectiveness 12

Debate #2 Pro: the government should fight recessions with spending hikes Economic downturn of 2008 and 2009 – The Fed cut its target interest rate to almost zero Cannot reduce interest rates below zero Once interest rates are at zero, the Fed has lost its most powerful tool – Turn to fiscal policy 13

Debate #2 Pro: the government should fight recessions with spending hikes Traditional Keynesian analysis – Increases in government purchases are a more potent tool than decreases in taxes 1 tax cut – part of it may be saved – Only part adds to AD 1 government spending – fully adds to AD 14

Debate #2 Pro: the government should fight recessions with spending hikes 2009, Obama administration estimations – 1of tax cuts increases GDP by 0.99 – 1of government purchases increases GDP by 1.59 – The 800 billion stimulus package Create or save more than 3 million jobs by the end of the president’s second year in office 15

Debate #2 Pro: the government should fight recessions with spending hikes 3 kinds of government spending – “Shovel-ready” projects – Federal aid to state and local governments Constitutionally required to run balanced budgets – Increased payments to the jobless unemployment insurance system President Barack Obama delivers remarks at the groundbreaking of a road project funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Friday, June 18, 2010, in Columbus, Ohio. 16

Debate #2 Con: the government should fight recessions with tax cuts Tax cuts – Increase AD Increase households’ disposable income By altering incentives - stimulate investment – Increase AS Unemployed - incentive to search for jobs Employed - incentive to work longer hours 17

Debate #2 Con: the government should fight recessions with tax cuts Problems with increasing government spending during recessions – Government-spending multipliers – smaller Consumers - higher taxes in the future – Cut back spending today Firms - reduced expectations of future profits – Reduce investment spending today 18

Debate #2 Con: the government should fight recessions with tax cuts Problems with increasing government spending during recessions – Fast increase in spending Buy things of little public value – “Bridges to nowhere” – Careful and deliberate planning Long lags 19

Debate #3 3. Should monetary policy be made by rule rather than by discretion? Federal Open Market Committee – Sets monetary policy – complete discretion – Meets about every six weeks Evaluate the state of the economy – Short-term interest rates Raise, lower, or leave unchanged – The Fed - adjusts the money supply 20

Debate #3 Pro: monetary policy should be made by rule Problems with discretionary monetary policy – Does not limit incompetence and abuse of power Political business cycle – If central bankers ally with politicians – Discretionary policy - can lead to economic fluctuations that reflect the electoral calendar 21

Debate #3 Pro: monetary policy should be made by rule Problems with discretionary monetary policy – It might lead to more inflation than is desirable Time inconsistency of policy – Central bankers – know there is no long-run trade-off between inflation and unemployment » Announce goal - zero inflation » Short-run trade-off between inflation and unemployment 22

Debate #3 Con: monetary policy should not be made by rule Discretionary monetary policy – flexible – The Fed – various circumstances – Better to appoint good people to conduct monetary policy And then give them the freedom to do the best they can – The alleged problems with discretion Are largely hypothetical 23

Debate #4 4. Should the central bank aim for zero inflation? Inflation – Prices rise when the government prints too much money – Society faces a short-run trade-off between inflation and unemployment 24

Debate #4 Pro: the central bank should aim for zero inflation Six costs of inflation: – Shoeleather costs associated with reduced money holdings – Menu costs associated with more frequent adjustment of prices – Increased variability of relative prices 25

Debate #4 Pro: the central bank should aim for zero inflation Six costs of inflation: – Unintended changes in tax liabilities due to non-indexation of the tax code – Confusion and inconvenience resulting from a changing unit of account – Arbitrary redistributions of wealth associated with dollar-denominated debts 26

Debate #4 Pro: the central bank should aim for zero inflation Reducing inflation – Temporary: high unemployment & low output – Long-run: no trade-off – Temporary costs – Permanent benefits 27

Debate #4 Con: the central bank should not aim for zero inflation Benefits of zero inflation – are small – Compared to moderate inflation Costs of reaching zero inflation are large – Sacrifice ratio – Social costs Small inflation - may be a good thing 28

Debate #5 5. Should the government balance its budget? When the government spends more than it collects in tax revenue – It covers this budget deficit by issuing government debt Affect saving, investment, and interest rates 29

Debate #5 Pro: government should balance its budget Federal debt – 712 billion in 1980 – 11.3 trillion in 2012 – 36,000 - each person’s share of the government debt “What?!? My share of the government debt is 36,000?” 30

Debate #5 Pro: government should balance its budget Government debt – Direct effect: place a burden on future generations – Macroeconomic effects Lower national saving Future generations: lower incomes and higher taxes 31

Debate #5 Pro: government should balance its budget Justifiable to run a budget deficit – War – Temporary downturn in economic activity Not all budget deficits can be justified by war or recession 32

Debate #5 Pro: government should balance its budget 1980 – 1995, government debt as percentage of GDP – Increased from 26 to 50% of GDP No major military conflict No major economic downturn – Causes Easier to increase government spending Than to increase taxes 33

Debate #5 Pro: government should balance its budget Budget deficit in recent years – Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – Effects of the recessions in 2001 and 2008– 2009 – Imperative that this deficit not signal a return to the unsustainable fiscal policy of an earlier era 34

Debate #5 Pro: government should balance its budget Aim for a balanced budget – Greater national saving – Greater investment – Economic growth 35

Debate #5 Con: government should not balance its budget The problem of government debt – Often exaggerated – Government debt - tax burden on younger generations Not large compared to lifetime income Lifetime income 2 million Debt 36,000 per person – 2% of lifetime income 36

Debate #5 Con: government should not balance its budget Budget deficit – Just one piece of a large picture Of how the government chooses to raise and spend money Fiscal policy – Affect different generations of taxpayers 37

Debate #5 Con: government should not balance its budget Government debt - can continue to rise forever – Burden of the government debt relative to the size of the nation’s income – Economy – grows over time – Nation’s ability to pay the interest on the government debt grows over time as well 38

Debate #5 Con: government should not balance its budget Government debt - can continue to rise forever – As long as the government debt grows more slowly than the nation’s income There is nothing to prevent the government debt from growing forever – Real output of the U.S. economy Grows on average about 3% per year 39

Debate #5 Con: government should not balance its budget Government debt - can continue to rise forever – If the inflation rate is 2% per year – Nominal income grows: 5% per year Real output grows: 3% per year – Government debt can rise by 5% per year without increasing the ratio of debt to income 40

Debate #5 Con: government should not balance its budget Government debt - can continue to rise forever – 2012, federal government debt: 11.3 trillion 565 billion is 5% As long as the federal budget deficit is smaller than 565 billion, the policy is sustainable 41

Debate #5 Con: government should not balance its budget Very large budget deficits cannot persist forever – 2009-2012, federal budget deficit: over 1 trillion very year Driven by extraordinary circumstances Major financial crisis Deep economic downturn Policy responses to these events 42

Debate #5 Con: government should not balance its budget 2009-2012, federal budget deficit – No one suggests that a deficit of this magnitude can continue – But zero is the wrong target for fiscal policymakers 43

Debate #6 6. Should the tax laws be reformed to encourage saving? Nation’s standard of living – Depends on its ability to produce goods and services Determined by how much it saves and invests for the future 44

Debate #6 Pro: the tax laws should be reformed to encourage saving Nation’s saving rate – Determinant of long-run economic prosperity U.S. tax system - discourages saving – Tax the return to saving quite heavily – Tax some forms of capital income twice – Inheritance tax rate - as high as 55% 45

Debate #6 Pro: the tax laws should be reformed to encourage saving Other policies and institutions – Discourage saving Tax code – improved to encourage saving – Preferential treatment to some types of retirement saving – Consumption tax 46

Debate #6 Con: the tax laws should not be reformed to encourage saving Fairly distribution of the tax burden Tax policies – to encourage saving – Increase the tax burden on people who cannot afford to save – May not be effective Substitution effect Income effect 47

Debate #6 Con: the tax laws should not be reformed to encourage saving Other ways to increase national saving – No tax breaks to the rich – National saving private public saving Raise public saving – By reducing the budget deficit – Raise taxes on the wealthy 48