• 4 mintues Texas forced to have rolling brown outs. Not from downed power line , but because the wind energy turbines are frozen.
  • 7 minutes Forecasts for oil stocks.
  • 9 minutes Biden's $2 trillion Plan for Insfrastructure and Jobs
  • 13 minutes European gas market to 2040 according to Platts Analitics
  • 1 min Simple question: What is the expected impact in electricity Demand when EV deployment exceeds 10%
  • 3 hours America's pandemic dead deserve accountability after Birx disclosure
  • 2 hours Putin blocks Ukraine access to Black Sea after Joe blinks
  • 6 hours Today Biden calls for Summit with Putin. Will Joe apologize to Putin for calling him a "Killer" ?
  • 3 hours U.S. Presidential Elections Status - Electoral Votes
  • 1 day Fukushima
  • 2 days CO2 Mitigation on Earth and Magnesium Civilization on Mars – Just Add Water
  • 1 day Biden about to face first real test. Russia building up military on Ukraine border.
  • 4 days New Chinese Coal Plants Equal All those in U.S.A
Is This The Most Exciting Commodity Play Of 2021?

Is This The Most Exciting Commodity Play Of 2021?

Helium supply is being exhausted…

The Permian Faces An Empty Pipeline Crisis

The Permian Faces An Empty Pipeline Crisis

U.S. shale was arguably the…

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