• 6 minutes WTI @ 67.50, charts show $62.50 next
  • 14 minutes Saudi Fund Wants to Take Tesla Private?
  • 18 minutes California Solar Mandate Based on False Facts
  • 3 hours Starvation, horror in Venezuela
  • 3 hours Monsanto hit by $289 Million for cancerous weedkiller
  • 27 mins Anyone Worried About the Lira Dragging EVERYTHING Else Down?
  • 1 hour Oil prices---Tug of War: Sanctions vs. Trade War
  • 6 hours Why hydrogen economics is does not work
  • 2 hours Correlation does not equal causation, but they do tend to tango on occasion
  • 10 hours WTI @ 69.33 headed for $70s - $80s end of August
  • 9 hours WSJ *still* refuses to acknowledge U.S. Shale Oil industry's horrible economics and debts
  • 1 hour Russia retaliate: Our Response to U.S. Sanctions Will Be Precise And Painful
  • 15 hours What Turkey Sanctions Are Really About
  • 14 hours Saudi Production Cut or Demand Drop?
  • 12 hours Merkel, Putin to discuss Syria, Ukraine, Nord Stream 2
  • 8 hours Saudi Aramco IPO Seems Unlikely

Temporary vs. Permanent Increases in Government Spending

Not long ago Paul Krugman wrote:

To a first approximation, in other words, the effect of current fiscal policy — whether stimulus or austerity — an [on?] the actions of future governments is zero.

He makes further points at the link, although there is not a citation to the literature. I thought we should look at the evidence a little more closely. Some of it contradicts Krugman as read literally, though it is not all bad news for his larger point.

Here is an abstract from Brian Goff:

In spite of Peacock and Wiseman’s 1961 NBER study demonstrating the “displacement effect”, simplistic theoretical and empirical distinctions between temporary and permanent spending are common. In this paper, impulse response functions from ARMA models as well as Cochrane’s non-parametric method support Peacock and Wiseman’s conclusion by showing 1) government spending in the aggregate displays strong persistence to temporary shocks, 2) simple decomposition methods intended to yield a “temporary” spending series have a weak statistical foundation, and 3) persistence in spending has increased during this century. Also, as a basic “fact” of government spending behavior, the displacement effect lends support to interest group and bureaucracy models of government spending growth.

There is persistence to spending, although this study does not create a category for stimulus spending per se, however that concept might be defined.

Click here to read the full article



Join the discussion | Back to homepage

Leave a comment

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News