IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lev/levppb/ppb_81.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Breaking out of the Deficit Trap: The Case Against the Fiscal Hawks

Author

Listed:
  • James K. Galbraith

Abstract

From this paper's Preface, by Dr. Dimitri B. Papadimitriou, President: For some time, Levy Institute scholars have been engaged with issues related to the current account, government, and private sector balances. We have argued that the existing imbalances in these accounts are unsustainable and will ultimately present a serious challenge to the performance of the U.S. economy. Other scholars are also concerned, but for reasons that we do not share. They argue that the interest rate is determined by the supply and demand of saving.When the government reduces its saving, the total supply of saving falls, and the interest rate inevitably rises. The result, they say, is that interest-sensitive spending, and investment in particular, falls. Finally, these scholars say, less investment now necessarily implies less output in the future. In this new brief, Senior Scholar James K. Galbraith evaluates a recent article by William G. Gale and Peter R. Orszag, two economists who regard this view of deficits as plausible. He forwards an alternative, Keynesian view. This alternative suggests that deficits can increase overall output, possibly enabling the government to spend more money without increasing the ratio of the debt to GDP. He casts doubt on the notion that the interest rate is determined by the supply and demand of saving, arguing that monetary policy plays a much larger role than Gale and Orszag allow for. Moreover, he writes, strong demand for goods and services is more important than the supply of capital in determining the pace of technological advance and the rate of growth of output per worker. Though he is skeptical about Gale and OrszagÕs theoretical framework, Galbraith calls attention to some important econometric findings in their paper. Gale and Orszag calculate the effects of deficits on the interest rate. Consistent with GalbraithÕs view, monetary policy turns out to be a major determinant of long-term interest rates. When interest rates are measured as the current cost of funds, Gale and Orszag find that deficits have no significant impact on interest rates. GalbraithÕs theoretical view of interest rate determination, together with Gale and OrszagÕs empirical findings, constitutes a powerful rebuttal of the reflexively antideficit view. Recent economic history suggests that this rebuttal is plausible. The recent increase in the U.S. federal deficit has not yet resulted in high interest rates. Interest rates in Japan, where deficits have been very large, remain at rock-bottom levels. The Levy Institute continues to believe that, together, unsustainable economic imbalances amount to one of the nationÕs most pressing issues, as we believe our Strategic Analysis series has documented. As Galbraith demonstrates, however, some observers are placing an undue emphasis on government deficit reduction, as if the government were the source of all that ails the economy. A more balanced approach would take into account the pernicious effects of excessive private debt and the need to devalue the dollar. We believe that our readers, especially those who follow the Strategic Analysis series, will find this brief to be a helpful look at another facet of the complex and knotty deficits problem.

Suggested Citation

  • James K. Galbraith, 2005. "Breaking out of the Deficit Trap: The Case Against the Fiscal Hawks ," Economics Public Policy Brief Archive ppb_81, Levy Economics Institute.
  • Handle: RePEc:lev:levppb:ppb_81
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/ppb_81.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wynne Godley & Alex Izurieta & Gennaro Zezza, 2004. "Prospects and Policies for the U.S. Economy: Why Net Exports Must Now Be the Motor for U.S. Growth," Economics Strategic Analysis Archive 04-7, Levy Economics Institute.
    2. Edwin M. Truman, 2001. "The International Implications of Paying Down the Debt," Policy Briefs PB01-07, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
    3. Harcourt,G. C., 1972. "Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521096720, October.
    4. Paul A. Samuelson, 1966. "A Summing Up," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 80(4), pages 568-583.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. James Shoch, 2008. "Bringing Public Opinion and Electoral Politics Back In: Explaining the Fate of “Clintonomics†and Its Contemporary Relevance," Politics & Society, , vol. 36(1), pages 89-130, March.
    2. William Milberg, 2007. "Is the Sky Falling?:," Challenge, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(6), pages 91-108.
    3. Thomas R. Michl, 2013. "Public debt, growth, and distribution," Review of Keynesian Economics, Edward Elgar Publishing, vol. 1(1), pages 120-144, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gilbert Faccarello, 1976. "Bibliographie," Cahiers d'Économie Politique, Programme National Persée, vol. 3(1), pages 243-260.
    2. Lance Taylor, 2015. "Veiled Repression: Mainstream Economics, Capital Theory,and the Distributions of Income and Wealth," Working Papers Series 32, Institute for New Economic Thinking.
    3. Luigi L. Pasinetti, 2000. "Critique of the neoclassical theory of growth and distribution," BNL Quarterly Review, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, vol. 53(215), pages 383-431.
    4. J. Barkley Rosser, 2020. "Austrian themes and the Cambridge capital theory controversies," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 33(4), pages 415-431, December.
    5. P. C. Afxentiou*, 1985. "Opportunity Costs and Collective Bargaining," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 53(4), pages 244-250, December.
    6. Kurose, Kazuhiro & Yoshihara, Naoki, 2016. "The Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson Model and the Cambridge Capital Controversies," UMASS Amherst Economics Working Papers 2016-05, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Economics.
    7. Carlo Milana, 2019. "Solving the Reswitching Paradox in the Sraffian Theory of Capital," Applied Economics and Finance, Redfame publishing, vol. 6(6), pages 97-125, November.
    8. Saverio M. Fratini, 2019. "A note on re-switching, the average period of production and the Austrian business-cycle theory," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 32(4), pages 363-374, December.
    9. Malte Faber & Ralph Winkler, 2006. "Heterogeneity and Time," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(3), pages 803-825, July.
    10. Gregor Semieniuk, 2017. "Piketty’s Elasticity of Substitution: A Critique," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(1), pages 64-79, January.
    11. Eckhard Hein, 2020. "Sparen und Investieren im 21. Jahrhundert — die post-keynesianische Perspektive," Wirtschaftsdienst, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 100(8), pages 582-585, August.
    12. James L. Dietz, 1973. "Paradise Reswitched," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 5(2), pages 1-17, July.
    13. Hideyuki Kamiryo, 2014. "Earth Endogenous System: To Answer the Current Unsolved Economic Problems (Second Edition)," Earth Endogenous System: To Answer the Current Unsolved Economic Problems (Second Edition), Better Advances Press, Canada, edition 2, volume 2, number 01 edited by Dr. Yisheng Huang, May.
    14. Eric Sheppard, 1984. "Value and Exploitation in a Capitalist Space Economy," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 9(2), pages 97-107, November.
    15. Sergio Cesaratto, 2008. "The Macroeconomics of the Pension Fund Reform and the case of the TFR reform in Italy," Department of Economics University of Siena 549, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    16. Up Sira Nukulkit, 2018. "Neutral Technical Progress and the Measure of Value: along the Kaldor-Kennedy line," Working Paper Series, Department of Economics, University of Utah 2018_05, University of Utah, Department of Economics.
    17. Kersting, Götz & Schefold, Bertram, 2021. "Best techniques leave little room for substitution. A new critique of the production function," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 509-533.
    18. Garbellini, Nadia, 2020. "Measurement without theory, and theory without measurement: What's wrong with Piketty's capital in the XXI century?," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 50-62.
    19. Avi J. Cohen, 2003. "Retrospectives: Whatever Happened to the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversies?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(1), pages 199-214, Winter.
    20. Fabrizio Ferretti, 2008. "Patterns of technical change: a geometrical analysis using the wage-profit rate schedule," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(5), pages 565-583.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lev:levppb:ppb_81. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Elizabeth Dunn (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.levyinstitute.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.