Harvard study: Obama stimulus should have focused more on tax cuts

October 28, 2009

Now they tell us. A new NBER paper from Harvard’s Alberto F. Alesina and Silvia Ardagna (“Large Changes in Fiscal Policy: Taxes Versus Spending”) makes the case for tax cuts over spending as stimulus:

As we well know a very large portion of the current astronomical 12 percent of GDP deficit is the result of bailout of various types of the financial sector.  … But part of the deficit is the result of the stimulus package that was passed to lift the economy out of the recession. About two third of this fiscal package is constituted by increases in spending, including public investment, transfers and government consumption. According to our results fiscal stimuli based upon tax cut are much more likely to be growth enhancing than those on the spending side. In this respect the US stimulus plan seems too much based upon spending.

Needless to say when considering a single episode many other factors jump to mind, factors which are difficult to capture in a multi country regressions. For instance, American families were saving too little before the crisis. An income tax cut might have just simply been saved and might have had not a big impact on aggregate consumption. However, more saving might have reinforced the financial sector, think of the credit card crisis for instance. In addition, one could have though of tax cuts that stimulate investment. Also, given the gravity of the crisis an increase in the generosity of unemployed benefits seems quite warranted both in terms of social justice and in terms of sustaining aggregate demand, since the unemployed probably save very little anyway. The benefit of infrastructure projects which have “long and variable lags” is much more questionable.

5 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

I agree that taxes should have been cut. He should have eliminated the tax on citizens and taxed giant banks/corporations their rightful share. He should close ALL of their tax loop holes and force them by law to reinvest in the communities they draw from.He should revoke the rights of corporations to be treated as citizens. That would be the way to cut taxes and increase revenue. Keeping the citizen free ensures a free America.

Who hires people corporations ? no…. they aren’t responsible for any jobs in the country so this tax the….yea right

Posted by Bob | Report as abusive

I agree that long-lag pork has no place. However, if they can spend the money quickly, rather than giving somebody who’s unemployed or underemployed a gift, it would be better to pay them to do something useful for the government; they end up with the money to spend either way. The authors quoted make no clear point in the quotation (and the English has some defects).

Posted by Pete Cann | Report as abusive

Benny, a higher corporate tax would just translate into higher prices. Individual citizens pay all the taxes, either directly or through some middle men.While I am of the opinion that more tax cuts would’ve been benificial, this “study” (at least the quoted part) doesn’t seem to have any supporting evidence besides logic. Did the full version include analysis of previous stimulus programs in the US and other similar countries?*I am unable to view the full document due to a work firewall

Drewbie,I have to admit that I’m by no means an economic expert. I do however see the flow of money from citizens that actually make up the economic engine, to merchants who’s sole purpose is profit extraction.If there were real value in what is being “produced” today then there would be no need to drive debt the way we have. We were encouraged by corporate america and also by government (because of business sector lobbying), to spend money we didn’t have, to buy things we didn’t need. We were given the blessing by the powers that be to support our country’s economic growth by way of consumption.But when this experiment failed, as it was bound to, those who are supposed to represent OUR (the citizen’s) interests, instead jumped to the aid of the business/banking sector (remember the too big to fail bs?), by giving them money to stay in business.It was money that should have gone to help citizens stay afloat while the business sector was shaped by the “survival of the fittest” philosophy they touted so loudly in the 80′s and 90′s.Instead they magically convinced our elected representatives that making sure THEY stayed in business was the only way for us poor folks to be properly served. As soon as they realized that we were focusing on paying down our own debts, we stopped getting any more “stimulus” checks.By the logic displayed in the actions of our country over the past few years, it’s easy to see that our system REQUIRES that a percentage of the population go homeless, hungry,uneducated, and sick. Otherwise there is no opportunity for profit.Even though the citizenry is too IMPORTANT to fail, our “representatives” did not serve our interests. They served their own interests and the interests of those who bring money their way.Only one president ago we spent money hand over fist to kill people in other countries because we SUSPECTED they intended to do us harm. We fought so hard for this that even when we realized the truth we still went ahead and spent that money up, and spilled the blood of our children, at the expense of our own people here at home.But now we have issues of health care and education and all of a sudden cost is a factor. How absurd is this? If we were willing to spend money we didn’t have in order to kill, then surely we can make some economic adjustments in order to ensure access to health care and quality of life.This is not a technical issue (who’s going to pay, how are we going to do it etc..).It’s simply an ethical one. We’ve already made the choice to spend money we didn’t have in order to kill.Now we have a new question before us. Should we make the effort to ensure a better quality of life for our people here at home, or not?