Aruncandu-mi ochii pe WSJ, atentia mi-a fost retinuta de un material scris de Alan Blinder. Pentru cei carora numele nu le spune nimic, este vorba de renumitul profesor de economie de la Priceton University. Printre altele a mai ocupat si postul de vicepresedinte al FED, organism insarcinat cu stabilitatea preturilor si ocuparea "deplina" a fortei de munca! Evident ca adjectivul nu este decat o ironie antikeynesista!
Ce se intreaba (retoric) profesorul Blinder in materialul cu pricina?
"But the question remains: How can the government destroy jobs by either hiring people directly or buying things from private companies? For example, how is it that public purchases of computers destroy jobs but private purchases of computers create them?"
In continuare, el ofera si critica cateva din argumentele standard:
1. One possible answer is that the taxes necessary to pay for the government spending destroy more jobs than the spending creates. That's a logical possibility, although it would require extremely inept choices of how to spend the money and how to raise the revenue. But tax-financed spending is not what's at issue today. [...] For example, the large fiscal stimulus enacted in 2009 was not "paid for." Yet it has been claimed that it created essentially no jobs. Really? With spending under the Recovery Act exceeding $600 billion (and tax cuts exceeding $200 billion), that would be quite a trick. How in the world could all that spending, accompanied by tax cuts, fail to raise employment? In fact, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the stimulus's effect on employment in 2010 was at least 1.3 million net new jobs, and perhaps as many as 3.3 million.
2. A second job-destroying mechanism operates through higher interest rates. When the government borrows to finance spending, that pushes interest rates up, which dissuades some businesses from investing. Thus falling private investment destroys jobs just as rising government spending is creating them.
There are times when this "crowding-out" argument is relevant. But not today. The Federal Reserve has been holding interest rates at ultra-low levels for several years, and will continue to do so. If interest rates don't rise, you don't get crowding out.
3. Let's try one final argument that is making the rounds today. Large deficits, it is claimed, are creating huge uncertainties (e.g., over what will eventually be done to reduce them) and those uncertainties are depressing business investment. The corollary is a variant of what my Princeton colleague Paul Krugman calls the Confidence Fairy: If you cut spending sharply, confidence will soar, spurring employment and investment.
Ofer sansa studentilor mei (in special cei care au inca restanta la macro) de a-si exersa cunostintele de macroeconomie aplicata! Voi premia pe toti aceia care identifica unde subrezeste logica princetoniana a lui Alan Blinder in materie de interventionism si ocuparea fortei de munca! Cu alte cuvinte, de ce ramane valida afirmatia ca mai mult guvern in economie inseamna volens nolens mai putin privat si piata libera?
Astept cu interes deschiderea unei dezbateri reale...