We need a different paradigm while thinking about the deficit. Of course we need more stimulus. The difficult question is: What do we need in the future?
A move to austerity as soon as possible is dangerous & misguided. Fails to appreciate the big structural changes in our economy, which is the emergence of a massive excess of private savings over private investments at a reasonable interest rate. What I call secular stagnation.
We need to absorb private savings and the best way is expansionary fiscal policy.
Need to think about debt burdens in a reasonable way. We need to decide what are the important deficits.
If we make necessary investments, and do it sensibly, they will grow the GDP enough to generate enough tax collection that we won't have a rising debt to GDP ratio.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I have a Viewpoint out in JAMA with my colleague @Cutler_econ – The COVID-19 Pandemic and the $16 Trillion Virus. It is particularly relevant today ja.ma/3diC0U9
1/13
We estimate the cost of the COVID virus for the US. Bottom line cost: $16 trillion. This is $200,000 per family or 90% of a year’s GDP.
2/13
Some other metrics: this is 4x the output loss of the Great Recession, 2x the cost of all wars since 9/11, and roughly the cost of climate change in the next 50 years. Let me explain the estimates.
3/13
It is indefensible that you are more likely to get audited if you live in the Mississippi Delta than on Park Avenue
3/ And it’s outrageous the IRS is so underfunded it has been unable to pick up the phone when taxpayers call for help
And unacceptable that it does not have agents to work the cases of a few hundred high-income individuals whose failure to even file taxes cost the IRS billions
Glenn Hubbard asked me today at a talk with the @EconClubNY, "How do you expect higher-ed to be evolving both in terms of delivery and addressing opportunity?" I told him I think the two things go together.
I am very proud of the fact that I put in place a set of policies during my time as President of @Harvard that was widely emulated, that basically said if your family had an income below $60,000, you didn’t have to pay a cent to come to @Harvard.
This changed the composition of student body, the applicant pool and influenced what other universities did. It was a really great thing.
My conversation with @HarvardHBS Prof. Robin Greenwood on public health, economic policy, politics, financial markets and what the crisis means to higher education. Watch here: hbs.edu/mba/blog/post/…
These events are not a huge surprise. As President of @Harvard, I said global health should be a priority b/ two of most important things to happen in 21st century were the rise of developing world & the century of biology. Those two things come together @ global health issues.
It’s mostly not our policy that is reducing the performance of the economy, it’s the disease itself. You can open the economy all you want but not many people are going go shopping when they think 10 percent of their neighbors have a potentially fatal, contagious disease.
As @federalreserve & other central banks have expanded their balance sheets in previously unimaginable ways, the international community needs to do Mario Draghi’s famous phrase "whatever it takes" to maintain functioning global financial system. Here are 3 ways to do it.
First, the IMF, World Bank and regional development banks need to be as aggressive as the world’s central banks in expanding their lending. This means recognizing both that the current near-zero interest rate environment makes it possible to use more leverage.
If airline industry wants no payback to government, let them try their luck with other funders. If airline execs were not complaining, we could be sure the terms were too generous.
Airlines running of their business on a high leverage, low cash reserve basis was a strategic choice which for years worked great for their shareholders. Now it hasn’t. Too bad. Not a rationale for a bailout.