Views: 1974|Replies: 3
Print Last thread Next thread

Which economic stimulus works better to fight COVID-19? [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 4

Jump to the specified floor
1#
Post time 2020-6-10 16:10:12 |View the author only |View in reverse order
Governments around the world are responding forcefully to the COVID-19 crisis with a combined fiscal and monetary response that has already reached 10 percent of global GDP. Yet according to the latest global assessment from the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, these stimulus measures may not boost consumption and investment by as much as policymakers are hoping.

The problem is that a significant portion of the money is being funneled directly into capital buffers, leading to an increase in precautionary balances. The situation is akin to the “liquidity trap” that so worried John Maynard Keynes during the Great Depression.

Today’s stimulus measures have understandably been rolled out in haste — almost in panic — to contain the economic fallout from the pandemic. And while this fire-hose approach was neither targeted nor precise, many commentators would argue that it was the only option at the time. Without a massive injection of emergency liquidity, there probably would have been widespread bankruptcies, losses of organizational capital and an even steeper path to recovery.

But it is now clear that the pandemic will last much longer than a few weeks, as was initially assumed when these emergency measures were enacted. That means these programs all need to be assessed more carefully, with an eye to the long term. During periods of deep uncertainty, precautionary savings typically rise as households and businesses hold on to cash for fear of what lies ahead.

The current crisis is no exception. Much of the money that households and businesses receive in the form of stimulus checks will probably sit idle in their bank accounts, owing to anxieties about the future and a broader reduction in spending opportunities. At the same time, banks will likely have to sit on the excess liquidity, for lack of credit-worthy borrowers willing to take out fresh loans.

Not surprisingly, excess reserves held in US depository institutions nearly doubled between February and April, from US$1.5 trillion to US$2.9 trillion. For comparison, excess reserves held in banks during the Great Recession reached just US$1 trillion. This massive increase in bank reserves suggests that the stimulus policies implemented so far have had a low multiplier effect. Clearly, bank credit alone is not going to lead us out of the current economic stalemate.

Making matters worse, today’s excess liquidity may carry a high social cost. Beyond the usual fears about debt and inflation, there is also good reason to worry that the excess cash in banks will be funneled toward financial speculation. Stock markets are already gyrating wildly on a daily basis, and this volatility could in turn perpetuate the climate of increased uncertainty, leading to still more precautionary behavior, and discouraging both consumption and the investment needed to drive the recovery.

Liquidity trap

In this case, we will be facing a liquidity trap and a liquidity conundrum: massive increases in the supply of money and only limited uses for it by households and businesses. Well-designed stimulus measures could help once COVID-19 has been brought under control. But as long as the pandemic is still raging, there can be no return to normalcy.

The key for now, then, is to reduce risk and increase incentives to spend. As long as firms are worried that the economy will remain weak six months or a year from now, they will postpone investment, thereby delaying the recovery. Only the state can break this vicious circle. Governments must take it upon themselves to insure against today’s risks, by offering compensation for firms in the event that the economy does not recover by a certain point in time.

Governments also should consider issuing spending vouchers to stimulate consumption. This is already happening in China, where local governments across many cities are issuing digital coupons that can be used to buy various goods and services within a certain timeframe. The expiration date makes them potent stimulants of consumption and aggregate demand in the short term — when it is needed most.

With the pandemic likely to last much longer than was originally assumed, still more stimulus will be necessary. Although the United States, for example, has already spent US$3 trillion on various forms of assistance, without more measures, that money will have merely prolonged the lives of many enterprises by a few months, rather than actually saving them.

One approach that has been working in several countries is to provide assistance to firms on the condition that they retain their workers, supporting wage bills and other costs in proportion to an enterprise’s decrease in revenue.

Poorly designed stimulus programs are not just ineffective, but potentially dangerous. Bad policies can contribute to inequality, sow instability and undermine political support for government precisely when it is needed to prevent the economy from falling into a prolonged recession. Fortunately, there are alternatives. But whether governments will take them up remains to be seen.

Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics and a professor at Columbia University, is chief economist at the Roosevelt Institute and a former senior vice president and chief economist of the World Bank. Hamid Rashid is chief of global economic monitoring at the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2020. www.project-syndicate.org

Rank: 8Rank: 8

2#
Post time 2020-6-10 17:36:34 |View the author only
The Illusion of a Rapid US Recovery

Jun 9, 2020 JamesK. Galbraith


(ref: https://www.project-syndicate.or ... k-galbraith-2020-06)


The United States has built an economy based on global demand for advancedgoods, consumer demand for frills, and ever-growing household and businessdebts.


This economy was in many ways prosperous, and it provided jobs andincomes to many millions. Yet it was a house of cards, and COVID-19 has blownit down.

AUSTIN – As protests roil the United States, the country’s center-lefteconomists gaze brightly into their crystal balls. Harvard’s JasonFurman, formerly chair of US President Barack Obama’s Council ofEconomic Advisers, has warned Democrats – eager to defeat President DonaldTrump in the November election – that “the best economic data ... in thehistory of this country” will emerge just before voters head to the polls. PaulKrugman is likewise predicting a “fast recovery.” The non-partisanCongressional Budget Office agrees.The stock market seems equally optimistic.

The arithmetic behind this thinking is simple. The CBO expects real GDP toshrink by 12% in the second quarter, and by 40% in annual terms. But itforecasts a third-quarter rebound of 5.4% – resulting in spectacular annualgrowth of 23.5%.

That is certainly possible: already in May, unemploymentfigures took a favorable turn, and it is looking like thesecond-quarter slump may not be as bad as projected. But, even if the CBO isright on both counts, GDP at election time would be seven percentage pointsbelow its first-quarter level, and unemployment would be above – possibly farabove – 10%.

Let’s assume that the optimists are right about the third quarter. Whathappens next? Will the economy continue merrily along, with incomes and jobsbouncing back? Or will it stay in depression, requiring a new revolution – or,more precisely, a new New Deal – to save it?

To assess this question, Furman, Krugman, and the CBO share a mental model.They regard the pandemic as an economic shock, like an earthquake or the 9/11 terroristattacks. It is a disruption to a solid structure, a deviation from normalgrowth. To get America moving again, what is mainly needed is confidence,perhaps aided by stimulus. If consumers channel their pent-up demandinto new spending, this “shock-stimulus” model dictates, then businesses willrevive investment, and soon enough, all will be well once again.

This is how mainstream center-left economists and policymakers have thoughtabout recessions and recoveries since at least the 1960s, when President JohnF. Kennedy and his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, pushed through tax cuts. Butit ignores three major changes in the US economy since then:


globalization,


therise of services in consumption and employment, and


the impact of personal andcorporate debts.

In the 1960s, the US had a balanced economy that produced goods for bothbusinesses and households, at all levels of technology, with a fairly small(and tightly regulated) financial sector. It produced largely for itself,importing mainly commodities.

Today, the US produces for the world, mainly advanced investment goods andservices, in sectors such as aerospace, information technology, arms, oilfieldservices, and finance. And it imports far more consumer goods, such asclothing, electronics, cars, and car parts, than it did a half-century ago.

And whereas cars, televisions, and household appliances drove US consumerdemand in the 1960s, a much larger share of domestic spending today goes (orwent) to restaurants, bars, hotels, resorts, gyms, salons, coffee shops, andtattoo parlors, as well as college tuition and doctor’s visits. Tens ofmillions of Americans work in these sectors.

Finally, American household spending in the 1960s was powered by risingwages and growing home equity. But wages have been largely stagnant since atleast 2000, and spending increases since 2010 were powered by rising personaland corporate debts. House values are now stagnant at best, and will likelyfall in the months ahead.

Mainstream economics pays little attention to such structural questions.Instead, it assumes that business investment responds mostly to the consumer,whose spending is dictated equally by income and desire. The distinctionbetween “essential” and “superfluous” does not exist. Debt burdens are largelyignored.

But demand for many US-made capital goods now depends on global conditions.Orders for new aircraft will not recover while half of all existing planes aregrounded. At current prices, the global oil industry is not drilling new wells.Even at home, though existing construction projects may be completed, plans fornew office towers or retail outlets won’t be launched soon. And as peoplecommute less, cars will last longer, so demand for them (and gasoline) willsuffer.

Faced with radical uncertainty, US consumers will save more andspend less. Even if the government replaces their lost incomes for a time,people know that stimulus is short term. What they do not know is when the nextjob offer – or layoff – will come along.

Moreover, people do distinguish between needs and wants. Americans need toeat, but they mostly don’t need to eat out. They don’t need to travel.Restaurant owners and airlines therefore have two problems: they can’t covercosts while their capacity is limited for public-health reasons, and demandwould be down even if the coronavirus disappeared. This explains why manybusinesses are not reopening even though they legally can. Others arereopening, but fear they cannot hold out for long. And the many millions ofworkers in America’s vast services sector are realizing that their jobs aresimply not essential.

Meanwhile, US household debts – rent, mortgage, and utility arrears, as wellas interest on education and car loans – have continued to mount. True,stimulus checks have helped: defaults have so far been modest, and manylandlords have been accommodating. But as people face long periods with lowerincomes, they will continue to hoard funds to ensure that they can repay theirfixed debts. As if all this were not enough, falling sales- and income-taxrevenues are prompting US state and local governments to cut spending,compounding the loss of jobs and incomes.

America’s economic plight is structural. It is not just simply the consequence ofTrump’s incompetence or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s poor political strategy. It reflects systemic changes over 50 years that have created an economy basedon global demand for advanced goods, consumer demand for frills, andever-growing household and business debts. This economy was in many waysprosperous, and it provided jobs and incomes to many millions. Yet it was ahouse of cards, and COVID-19 has blown it down.

“Reopen America” is therefore an economic and political fantasy. Incumbentpoliticians crave a cheery growth rebound, and the depth of the collapse makespossible some attractive short-term numbers. But taking them seriously willmerely set the stage for a new round of disillusion. As nationwide protestsagainst systemic racism and police brutality show, disillusionment is America’s onebig growth sector right now.

Rank: 6Rank: 6

3#
Post time 2020-6-10 22:27:03 |View the author only
There are numerous ways for that, depending on each country's situation. That said, it's absolutely wrong and perilous to lift lockdown before the pandemic reaches the inflection point, like uncle sam and John Bull have been scrambling to do...
Believe it or not, it's true.

Rank: 6Rank: 6

4#
Post time 2020-6-11 20:37:11 |View the author only
None.
You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.
澳冂金沙