LyrArc Article Gist
The IMF's changing views on the value of fiscal austerity. In the current debate about the value of fiscal austerity, there is the IMF view, a German view based on its own experience, and the views of other countries in Europe. The IMF's view has shifted over time. The IMF World Economic Outlook 2010, describes its view of the effects of austerity measures in the form of spending cuts and tax increases- "Fiscal consolidation typically has a contractionary effect on output. A fiscal consolidation equal to 1% of GDP typically reduces GDP by about 0.5% within 2 years and raises the unemployment rate by about 0.3% percentage points." Over the longer term there are benefits as the private sector is not crowded out in the search for captal funding by the excessive government borrowing. The IMF's economic models suggest that it would take 5 years before reaching the breakeven point when the benefits of austerity measures exceed the effects of austerity. The German view held by German central bankers is that the actions stimulate growth in the short term. Manfred Neumann, professor emeritus at the Institute for Economic Policy at the University of Bonn, says this is called the "German hypothesis" as it reflects the experience of Germany from austerity actions taken by Germany. Laurence Ball, professor of Economics at John Hopkins University, is critical of the "German hypothesis" and its application across Europe in different situations. Germany is a large exporting nation and exports helped counterbalance the effects of austerity measures. Within the eurozone with fixed exchange rates the exports of less competitive countries cannot be boosted through devaluing the currency to gain price competitiveness. The other problem is that with interest rates close to zero in the euro zone the central banks cannot cut rates aggressively to counteract the effects of spending cuts. The problem gets compounded when a number of countries are taking austerity measures at the same time accentuating the downturn....

LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman points out that the federal tax rate for the top 1% is 34% in 2013, according to the Congressional Budget Office, because president Obama let the high end Bush tax cuts to expire. It is the number to remember says Krugman- 34. In 2008 the figure was 28.2. Under Hillary Clinton the average tax rate for the top 1% would go up by 3.4 percentage points, according to the Tax Policy Center. Some of this would help pay for the tution plan to provide access to the middle class to public universities. Under populist Trump, Krugman points to the elimination of the inheritance tax and tax rates going down substantially, and no such programs to promote the upward mobility that everyone is talking about, and no way to pay for a big infrastructure building effort for growth and jobs- upward mobility that is the focus of every candidate's election campaign including Sanders, Trump in appealing to older white working class families, Clinton, Ryan, Bush, and others in both parties.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A recent book "The Spirit Level" has become popular in Britain. It says that countries with greater disparities in income also do worse in a number of social indicators, from higher murder rates to lower life expectancy. It also affects the consensus in society which is a necessary underpinning for sustained economic development and economic growth. Inequality when it affects the middle class and reduces the size of incomes in the middle, or creates stagnation in incomes, poses large risks for society and affects economic growth. In the US the home foreclosure crisis and the lack of bargaining power of wage earners in the middle class has created this problem. This is exacerbated by the banking crisis and bad loans in the banking system. Studies show that slow growth in college graduating rates in the USA after 1970 compared to the period 1900-1970, has increased inequality, especially with today's knowledge economy. Germany is also affected by this problem as wages for workers have remained stagnant with the labor reforms. Interestingly a combination of economic growth and payments to the poor have increased the size of the middle class and its incomes in Brazil. The austerity policies in Britain will affect incomes and income growth in Britain for the middle class. In China the gap is widening quickly between the urban areas and the rural areas. And the policy of residency permits- the hukou system-which limits internal mobility from rural areas to the cities and towns, makes the inequality all the more glaring. The lack of democratic election makes the situation worse in China compared to Brazil, because free elections in Brazil enabled leaders from the working classes such as Luiz Inacio Da Silva and Ms. Rousseff to emerge as heads of government. These leaders pursued policies that would explicitly bring a more shared prosperity in Brazil compared to the leadership in China. In China policies are determined by entrenched interests in its model of development- the state-owned companies and banks and their managers, local and government officials of the Communist party, and businesses with the networks and connections with the Communist party and local governments. This is why the ginni coefficient which measures inequality has dropped significantly in China, putting it in the rank of developing countries with poor records in equality. Inflation in China, India and Africa also affects the poor and lower middle classes to a greater extent. Current trends suggest that rebuilding the middle class in the developed countries and providing fairer distribution in developing countries will be of serious importance in coming years. Especially with the likelihood of more economic crises which tend to adversely affect the middle and lower classes disproportionately....