mame
Well-Known Member
Many on these boards look at the "failure" of the Obama stimulus and take it as proof that Keynesianism has failed. This is not the case, as the Obama stimulus was not as large as Keynesians said it would need to be and not only that - but it was made up of the wrong things (in terms of bang for buck, infrastructure for example would have been much more effective)... Krugman breaks it down:
How's about some infrastructure spending, guys? 1+ million construction workers are currently unemployed or underemployed and interest rates are at historic lows (and will remain that way as long as the economy is depressed)... What is so wrong with putting people to work building things that our nation needs anyway considering our crumbling and increasingly behind infrastructure?Somehow I missed the BEAs very useful page tracking the Recovery Act and how it is translated into taxes and spending. (Thanks to the commenter who mentioned it). Its especially useful for thinking about what the Obama stimulus really involved and what it didnt.
Look at the peak quarter of stimulus (pdf), which was the first quarter of 2010. Im going to rearrange the categories a bit. Heres how I read it: at annual rates (in other words, actual numbers in the quarter were only 1/4 as large), the total budget impact was $357 billion. Of that, we had:
Tax cuts and refundable tax credits: $151 billion
Aid to individuals (mainly unemployment insurance and food stamps): $70 billion
Aid to state and local governments: $103 billion
Everything else: $33 billion
Note that the aid to individuals was basically safety net, and the aid to state and local was about mitigating spending cuts rather than spending expansion. Basically, this was at best an attempt to beef up automatic stabilizers.
So much for we tried Keynesian policies and they didnt work.