I have a really basic question and I don't have time to go to the economics textbooks to check details. So I'm hoping someone can please shed some light on this.
Basically the story goes...
If the government spends X , then there will be m*X increase in GDP. (Fiscal multiplier effect)
I assume the number "m>1" is the multiplier that is estimated empirically and takes into account crowding out, etc. (Multiplier is because of money changing hands more than once) When I learned this multiplier it was generally assumed that this somehow made government spending more preferable.
Isn't it the case that if an individual spends X the same thing will happen? Or is there some magic that happens when you collect taxes? Why does it matter that the government spend the money? I don't see what the trick is, is it so easy to debunk this? Please let me know if you have a reference to a discussion of this.
And most of all, what happened to assessing things based on opportunity cost, rather than some gdp accounting?! (rhetorical question)
All that matters within the Keynesian model is that money is spent, not who spends it. So you're perfectly right that individuals spending money should have the same effect. C+I+G+(E-M)=Y. It doesn't matter where the spending comes from, it just has to come from somewhere. This is why (contra many conservative and more than one libertarian strawman) oftentimes Keynesians propose a variety of tax-breaks. Indeed that was a large part of the 09 stimulus package.
The reason why government spending is supposed to be especially effective is that the government has an incentive to have no propensity to save and therefore it can activate the multiplier. This is why Keynes advocated the "treasure chest" idea of the government saving a huge amount of money during the boom period and then when the depression hits it uses this money in order to boost back up aggregate demand.
Neodoxy,
Keynesians say that since the tax cut multiplier b/(1-b), is one less than the government spending "multiplier" 1/(1-b)
(1/(1-b)) - (b/(1-b)) = (1-b)/(1-b) = 1
that "proves" that government spending is better for the economy than tax cuts.
That comes from disguising the "saved" fraction of disposable income (1-b)Yd as a+I+NX, and disguising tax T, as G.
It's another kind of Keynesian math fraud. I have more about it in Pt 2, Fiscal Multiplier Debunked.
Scroll down about 2/3 of the way to The Bogus Tax Cut “Multiplier” (TCM)
Tugwit
Wheylous,
I never heard back from Caplan. And I don't use math tricks. I show the ones Keynesians use.
I did get a reply from a Keynesian professor. I had asked him: In the GDP equation:
Yt = C + I + NX + G
Where is tax? It seems kind of curious to have the GDP equation and no mention of tax doesn't it? I mean what is it that govt spends?
He went off on a big diversion and didn't answer. So I emailed back and asked him again. First, he was unable to find tax in the GDP equation. Then he said it was in C.
That's not the point. I want Tugwit's mathematical reply.
Tugwit , really big thanks!
This is exactly what I was looking for. I remembered there was some funny math with the tax multiplier difference. I'll take a look at the site a bit later.
You don't need mathematics to dispute or disprove it. A dollar spent by government at most is a dollar spent by government. The question is does it expand productivity and create wealth? In virutally all cases the answer is no.
Shackleford this is all highly irrelevant and begging the question of what the thread is actually trying to answer rationally.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
Jargon: Shackleford this is all highly irrelevant and begging the question of what the thread is actually trying to answer rationally.
No, it's not. Economics is not a physical science. The formulas used by Keynes are not laws or highly-accurate theories of physical phenomena. You do not need proofs to disprove the assertions purported by the mathematics.
shackleford: Jargon: Shackleford this is all highly irrelevant and begging the question of what the thread is actually trying to answer rationally. No, it's not. Economics is not a physical science. The formulas used by Keynes are not laws or highly-accurate theories of physical phenomena. You do not need proofs to disprove the assertions purported by the mathematics.
shackleford , I agree with your previous post that you don't need math to debunk this. However it is very important for me personally and probably in general to understand how the Keynesians are reasoning and be able to point out the errors in their models. That was the purpose of my post, and any arguments in that regard are very valuable to me. So I have to disagree with your criticism.
There's nothing wrong with using math in economics. The GDP equation, for example, is 100% true because it's an identity.
As for Tugwit - you don't need Tax to show up in GDP because it's not production, obviously.
If " you don't need Tax to show up in the GDP equation because it's not production" then what is it that government spends?
PS: The formatting appears to be back again.
Wheylous: There's nothing wrong with using math in economics. The GDP equation, for example, is 100% true because it's an identity. As for Tugwit - you don't need Tax to show up in GDP because it's not production, obviously.
I never said there's anything wrong with using math in economics. But the math is only descriptive, not prescriptive as in physical science. The GDP does not accurately measure economic growth. It's a tool used by statists to justify more government spending. Thanks, G! It seems to me that tax would be included in G. And G would include taxation as well as borrowed money.
Physical sciences are not prescriptive.
The math used in the physical sciences is still descriptive. Equations simply describe hypothesied relationships.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...