I'm no Keynes, but Germany seems to have illogical economic goals

[wasteofo2]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4449662.stm

Germany's three main political parties have formally signed the agreement to set up a "grand coalition"...

The 143-page agreement envisages tax increases and spending cuts designed to create jobs, cut the budget deficit and galvanise the sluggish economy.

I'm a teenager. There's obviously many things I don't know. Perhaps there are some principals involved with this that I'm not aware of.

However, this seems rather opposed to almost everything I've heard about economics.

Obviously, the two main ways to stimulate the economy are to increase govt. spending, or to cut taxes so as to increase private spending. Usually, as in the Great Depression, defecit spending has been preferred, since an already sluggish economy wouldn't fair well with higher taxes to fund the public spending. Spending cuts are usually proposed so that taxes can be lowered to encourage increased private spending.

So to me, the fact that the Germans want to hike taxes and cut spending, would seem to indicate that both Private and Pubilc expenditures will drop, and I don't see how this could be construed as a mean of revitalizing an economy.

I suppose that if the German government gets its defecit under control, interest rates can be allowed to fall, and firms might be more inclined to invest in Germany, since it's government has itself under control. Is that the angle they're working? Because if so, it would seem that this would really be a process that would take many years for any noticable change to take place.

Could someone more versed in economics explain if there's something I'm missing here, because it seems that the German government is just out of touch with basic economic principals to me.

 

[kleinwolf]

Right, to make economy, there is an apparently historical method that works well : just let everybody do what they want (how do you want to make the other way anyhow ? , there are crimes everyday I heard...) and raise military power on top...this is well working...

 

[Art]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4449662.stm
I'm a teenager. There's obviously many things I don't know. Perhaps there are some principals involved with this that I'm not aware of.
However, this seems rather opposed to almost everything I've heard about economics.
Obviously, the two main ways to stimulate the economy are to increase govt. spending, or to cut taxes so as to increase private spending. Usually, as in the Great Depression, defecit spending has been preferred, since an already sluggish economy wouldn't fair well with higher taxes to fund the public spending. Spending cuts are usually proposed so that taxes can be lowered to encourage increased private spending.
So to me, the fact that the Germans want to hike taxes and cut spending, would seem to indicate that both Private and Pubilc expenditures will drop, and I don't see how this could be construed as a mean of revitalizing an economy.
I suppose that if the German government gets its defecit under control, interest rates can be allowed to fall, and firms might be more inclined to invest in Germany, since it's government has itself under control. Is that the angle they're working? Because if so, it would seem that this would really be a process that would take many years for any noticable change to take place.
Could someone more versed in economics explain if there's something I'm missing here, because it seems that the German government is just out of touch with basic economic principals to me.

This is the approach Clinton took in the US and it worked well. However I believe the key to his success was that less borrowing by gov't led to lower interest rates which meant a net income gain to the vast majority of the population resulting in higher spending and thus 8,000,000 more jobs.

Germany is more complicated as they do not have control over their interest rates as these are set by the european central bank. I don't know a lot about the details of Germany's economy but even without interest rate declines reducing the deficit allows for reducing the allocation for debt servicing which frees up money for investment. If tightened too much it can lead to a downward spiral and deeper recession so it is a delicate balancing act made more so by not having the cushion of increased income from lower interest rates to cushion the impact.

Supply side economics whereby gov'ts reduce tax and try to spend their way out of recesson has a dismal track record although that is what the US has done first under Bush snr and now under Bush jnr. Britain's attempts at following this model some years back resulted in them having to ask the IMF to bail them out.

 

[kleinwolf]

There is a similar difference in several ideologies for marketing : tobacco is normally killing..but medicine should heal...but sometimes the second remain only theoretical, because there are accidents...So we could believe the first ideology is self.-destructing, because destructing it's target market...but this does not forbid billions of $ market for the first...

 

[Smurf]

Could someone more versed in economics explain if there's something I'm missing here, because it seems that the German government is just out of touch with basic economic principals to me.

It depends entirely on what they're current situation is. If they have low taxes and high spending, they might just be evening it out. If they already have high taxes and low spending, your right it will probably cause more problems.

...

Most economists are supply side economists these days (at least in Canada), and if I recall correctly it was the traditionalists that caused the 80s recession in the first place.

 

[Art]

It depends entirely on what they're current situation is. If they have low taxes and high spending, they might just be evening it out. If they already have high taxes and low spending, your right it will probably cause more problems.
...
Most economists are supply side economists these days (at least in Canada), and if I recall correctly it was the traditionalists that caused the 80s recession in the first place.

What shape is the Canadian economy in? Supply side economics (aka voodoo economics) relies on the belief that the increased growth generated will create a net increase in gov't income but with sluggish growth throughout the western world at the moment I can't imagine it working very well just now.

 

[wasteofo2]

This is the approach Clinton took in the US and it worked well. However I believe the key to his success was that less borrowing by gov't led to lower interest rates which meant a net income gain to the vast majority of the population resulting in higher spending and thus 8,000,000 more jobs.

Clinton didn't hike all taxes, he lowered middle and lower-class taxes, which allowed for what should be called "Demand Side Economics" to take it's affect, allowing the consumers to drive the economy instead of the producers. Plus he happened to be in office right as a huge technological revolution was creating tons of jobs; any President would've seen immense growth in that time period. Not that Clinton didn't do anything, but you can't credit the 90's to him. Weren't there more like 20 million jobs created under Clinton? I thought 8 million was Reagan's number.

Supply side economics whereby gov'ts reduce tax and try to spend their way out of recesson has a dismal track record although that is what the US has done first under Bush snr and now under Bush jnr. Britain's attempts at following this model some years back resulted in them having to ask the IMF to bail them out.

I think supply side economics hasn't worked for governments cause they refuse to reduce spending (at least in the U.S.). However, after the 90's (the U.S.'s longest and most prosperous period of growth), the slight recession we went into really doesn't seem that bad compared to the disasters of the '70's and '80's. In my mind, the tax cuts probabally helped keep a lot of jobs from leaving America by allowing them to make that extra bit of profit.

 

[wasteofo2]

It depends entirely on what they're current situation is. If they have low taxes and high spending, they might just be evening it out. If they already have high taxes and low spending, your right it will probably cause more problems.
...
Most economists are supply side economists these days (at least in Canada), and if I recall correctly it was the traditionalists that caused the 80s recession in the first place.

Compared to most Western nations, Germany has relatively high taxes, high spending, and high deficits.

 

[Smurf]

What shape is the Canadian economy in? Supply side economics (aka voodoo economics) relies on the belief that the increased growth generated will create a net increase in gov't income but with sluggish growth throughout the western world at the moment I can't imagine it working very well just now.

Well the shape of the Canadian economy won't have any relevance to supply side economics since our governments don't listen to economists. Our Budgets are designed by lawyers. But the BC economy, my econ prof would argue, is about as good as it gets, within reason.

 

[Art]

Clinton didn't hike all taxes, he lowered middle and lower-class taxes, which allowed for what should be called "Demand Side Economics" to take it's affect, allowing the consumers to drive the economy instead of the producers.

I agree in fact I think only 1.2% paid higher taxes. The key point was he massively reduced the deficit leading to lower debt servicing and lower interest rates.

Plus he happened to be in office right as a huge technological revolution was creating tons of jobs; any President would've seen immense growth in that time period. Not that Clinton didn't do anything, but you can't credit the 90's to him.

I guess the subject becomes political at this point. Maybe the economy would have done as well under another president but certainly Clinton focused on the right areas to create an environment conducive to growth - education, deficit reduction, investment and targeted aid (both social and industrial). To give him credit he banged on about these policy goals before he was elected so it's not as if these things just happened and he took the credit later.
Personally I haven't seen any such economic plan from the current admin. in fact if you know where I can find a reference to it I'd be very interested to read it.

Weren't there more like 20 million jobs created under Clinton? I thought 8 million was Reagan's number.

Apologies a typo by me I meant 18,000,000 which is the figure quoted in wikipedia.

I think supply side economics hasn't worked for governments cause they refuse to reduce spending (at least in the U.S.).

Isn't a key part of supply side economics (in practice) that gov'ts increase spending to stimulate economic activity? The gov't being a massive consumer of goods and services has a major influence on economic output.

However, after the 90's (the U.S.'s longest and most prosperous period of growth), the slight recession we went into really doesn't seem that bad compared to the disasters of the '70's and '80's. In my mind, the tax cuts probabally helped keep a lot of jobs from leaving America by allowing them to make that extra bit of profit.

Certainly in the short term you can create a false sense of economic well-being but as to the eventual outcome - time will tell. Some think everything will pan out okay others think the US is shoring up a disaster that will eventually overwhelm them. It has certainly already created a lot of volatity in the exchange value of the $US which is a serious dampener on inward investment.

My own thoughts are that if you finance your current gov't expenditure with longterm debt you are heading for a major fall. for eg the costs of the war in Iraq ($00 billions so far) is being financed entirely by borrowings. Borrowing for investment is fine (provided the investments are sound) but using your credit card to feed the electricity meter is a dangerous path to take.

 

[Art]

Well the shape of the Canadian economy won't have any relevance to supply side economics since our governments don't listen to economists. Our Budgets are designed by lawyers. But the BC economy, my econ prof would argue, is about as good as it gets, within reason.

Yes I just had a quick look at your balance of trade statement for 2005 and it looks pretty good. Luckily for you the gov't is not following the supply side economists' advice.

With our economic fundamentals solidly based on balanced budgets,
low inflation, declining domestic and international debt loads, a highly profitable corporate sector, and sound microeconomic
policies that make Canada one of the best places in the world to do business, I am confident that Canada is poised for further solid
performance in 2005.

Their economic policy sounds very Clintonesque.

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/eet/pdf/SOT-2005-English.pdf

 

[loseyourname]

Isn't a key part of supply side economics that gov'ts increase spending to stimulate economic activity?

As far as I know, it isn't. Supply-side economics simply advocates that the revenue streams of suppliers of goods and services be increased (by not taking quite as much off the top), thereby allowing them to create more jobs and better products and services, which in theory should end up benefitting everybody. If we look at the government as being a supplier of goods and services, then cutting their own revenue stream does not constitute a supply-side approach. What they should be doing is handing the ball off, allowing private firms to provide goods and services that the government was previously providing. The only reason public spending increased under Reagan and the Bushes is because all of them also carried out wars which required massive military buildups. The only jobs being created by the government are for soldiers, arms dealers, and contractors that work to rebuild the countries that we occupy. You shouldn't mistake the fiscal stupidity of politicians for real economic theory.

 

[Art]

As far as I know, it isn't. Supply-side economics simply advocates that the revenue streams of suppliers of goods and services be increased (by not taking quite as much off the top), thereby allowing them to create more jobs and better products and services, which in theory should end up benefitting everybody. If we look at the government as being a supplier of goods and services, then cutting their own revenue stream does not constitute a supply-side approach. What they should be doing is handing the ball off, allowing private firms to provide goods and services that the government was previously providing. The only reason public spending increased under Reagan and the Bushes is because all of them also carried out wars which required massive military buildups. The only jobs being created by the government are for soldiers, arms dealers, and contractors that work to rebuild the countries that we occupy. You shouldn't mistake the fiscal stupidity of politicians for real economic theory.

That's why I added 'in practice' to my mail above. Gov'ts which follow half an economic plan and half a political plan are unlikely to succeed well on either count.

However besides the numerous jobs created directly by gov't expenditure on defence there are also a huge amount of secondary jobs funded by the gov't in supplying for instance health care under the gov't health insurance plans and also of course in the businesses of those people supplying gov't agencies; Halliburton springs to mind

As you say ideally (in theory) this expenditure and hence supply should be farmed out to private companies but there are 2 problems with that. Firstly the 'good' problem is private companies are motivated by profit only and so in areas such as health the most vulnerable in society get trampled on and secondly the 'not so good problem' is politicians like to be able to target large amounts of expenditure as it can be very handy when you are looking to win votes in a key marginal

 

[Smurf]

Yes I just had a quick look at your balance of trade statement for 2005 and it looks pretty good. Luckily for you the gov't is not following the supply side economists' advice. Their economic policy sounds very Clintonesque.
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/eet/pdf/SOT-2005-English.pdf

*shrug* if you say so. They're not listening to traditionalists either. Like I said, their budgets are designed by lawyers.

We'll see what happens with the New Budget (assuming it gets through)

 

[Art]

*shrug* if you say so. They're not listening to traditionalists either. Like I said, their budgets are designed by lawyers.
We'll see what happens with the New Budget (assuming it gets through)

I'm not endosing their policies as I don't know anything about them other than what I gleaned form the article I read but balanced budgets and positive trade balances sounds good. Do you not agree?

 

[Smurf]

I'm not endosing their policies as I don't know anything about them other than what I gleaned form the article I read but balanced budgets and positive trade balances sounds good. Do you not agree?

We have a balanced budget? When did that happen?

 

[wasteofo2]

The only reason public spending increased under Reagan and the Bushes is because all of them also carried out wars which required massive military buildups. The only jobs being created by the government are for soldiers, arms dealers, and contractors that work to rebuild the countries that we occupy.

That's false. Non-defense spending fluxuated under Reagan; some years it dropped, some years it rose. At the end of his term, nondefense discretionary spending had risen by $32 billion. However, with Bush, non-defense spending has been constantly rising. If you'd care to remember, during his first term, Bush didn't veto a single bill, so anything congress wanted to spend money on, he was alright with. During 2000, Clinton's last year as President, the nondefense discretionary spending was $319 Billion. In 2003, Bush and the new Republican majority had hiked it up to $420 Billion.

This chart is entitled Outlays For Discretionary Spending Programs: 1962-2009, check it out. At the bottom there's a sumation of all the nondefense discretionary spending that took place in anyone year. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/sheets/hist08z7.xls

 

[Art]

We have a balanced budget? When did that happen?

Have a look at the link I posted. I can't speak to it's veracity but the article says they work on balanced budgets.

 

[Smurf]

Have a look at the link I posted. I can't speak to it's veracity but the article says they work on balanced budgets.

Yeah, they work towards a balanced budget alright. :rofl: :rofl: They balance it by dumping the surplus off the side of the road in Quebec. :rofl: :rofl:

 

[loseyourname]

That's false. Non-defense spending fluxuated under Reagan; some years it dropped, some years it rose. At the end of his term, nondefense discretionary spending had risen by $32 billion. However, with Bush, non-defense spending has been constantly rising. If you'd care to remember, during his first term, Bush didn't veto a single bill, so anything congress wanted to spend money on, he was alright with. During 2000, Clinton's last year as President, the nondefense discretionary spending was $319 Billion. In 2003, Bush and the new Republican majority had hiked it up to $420 Billion.

Okay, so I really haven't paid much attention to what money is being spent on by the government. Sorry for making a false statement. I guess I could have built an even stronger case that neither of these guys is actually a supply-sider had I done some actual research.

 

[sid_galt]

That's false. Non-defense spending fluxuated under Reagan; some years it dropped, some years it rose. At the end of his term, nondefense discretionary spending had risen by $32 billion.

Are those numbers adjusted for inflation?

 

[wasteofo2]

Are those numbers adjusted for inflation?

I'm unsure. Though I must assume that they are; there is no way with a Democratic Congress for all of Reagan's 8 years that nondefense discretionary spending didn't rise.

 

[wasteofo2]

I guess I could have built an even stronger case that neither of these guys is actually a supply-sider had I done some actual research.

Exactly.

Republicans are not for free-market capitalism, they're commie bastards.

Capitalism = Communism

~Capitalism = Communism