Center for Business and Economic Research - Ball State University


CBER Data Center
Projects and PublicationsEconomic IndicatorsWeekly CommentaryCommunity Asset InventoryManufacturing Scorecard

About

Commentaries are published weekly and distributed through the Indianapolis Business Journal and many other print and online publications. Disclaimer

RSS Feed

Disclaimer

The views expressed in these commentaries do not reflect those of Ball State University or the Center for Business and Economic Research.

Recent

The 246th Anniversary of ‘The Great Experiment’Our nation may be at its most divided, but I have great hope.

Inflation Affects Each Family DifferentlyWe understand earthquakes and hurricanes better than we do inflation.

Yes, State Stimulus Checks Boost InflationTax reductions and rebates can only increase inflation.

Time to Dump the Rich States, Poor States RankingsTax policy is the wrong incentive to spur economic growth.

View archives

Top Tags

jobs and employment 217
economics 169
education 134
economic development 133
taxes 121
finance 105
state and local government 99
recession 96
budget and spending 88
unemployment and the labor market 84
Browse all tags
Reporter / Admin Login

February 18, 2008

The Risky Fed Chairman

Over the next few months most of us will be receiving government checks designed to ‘stimulate’ the economy.   The payments, ranging from perhaps $600 to $1,200 per household and totaling about $160 billion, represent a considerable sum even to an economist.

It isn’t surprising that this fiscal stimulus package passed in an election year.  What is surprising is that it passed with the wholehearted backing of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, the former Princeton professor whose reputation was made as a monetary economist.  Fiscal policy has lost its luster these past fifty years, and Professor Bernanke is largely responsible for detailing its shortcomings.  It is worth revisiting the arguments.  

Fiscal policy is slow and clumsy (though technology does improve this a bit).  Fiscal stimulus policies involve either government spending of tax dollars not yet collected, or rebating of tax dollars already collected.  Leaving aside the obvious cost of a few tens of millions of dollars in government processing costs, this money wholly represents either a shifting of consumption from the future to the present, or from one group of taxpayers to another, or, as is the case in this package, both.  So, in order to stimulate the economy, we borrow from future taxpayers to distribute money to consumers today (without much regard for their having payed taxes recently).  This of course, should raise a few eyebrows.  For, if taxpayers are truly rational, then they must know that this stimulus package will be paid for by someone in the future – and that just might be you (unless you are in the bottom half of earners who pay no Federal income taxes). 

The question however, isn’t whether this is what happens (it is), but whether or not it is a good idea.  Let me explain.  

On the downside, a fiscal stimulus plan enlarges the government deficit, thus devaluing the dollar.  It also motivates consumers to spend, especially since about half the payments will go to consumers who didn’t pay any taxes in the first place (and so are unlikely to have to pay in the future).  This reduces savings, which also devalues the dollar, and increases the trade imbalance.  It also runs the risk of unintended consequences.  If it comes too late, it may simply lead to inflation, thus reducing the future value of savings (which in turn, promotes consumption, and reduces the value of the dollar, and increases the trade deficit). 

On the upside, monetary policy is tasked with a great challenge – to alter consumer perceptions about the future, while simultaneously making adjustments to the present.  Fiscal policy may make monetary policy easier to implement by increasing optimism during uncertain times.  Also, fiscal policy permits the targeting of payments to different groups of consumers – such as the poor and elderly.  This may mitigate the ill effects of a recession on the most vulnerable.   

In the end, this is a low cost effort and the greatest risk is to weaken Ben Bernanke’s reputation.  He may be wrong, but he is no coward. 

Link to this commentary: https://commentaries.cberdata.org/126/the-risky-fed-chairman

Tags: finance, stimulus


About the Author

Michael Hicks cberdirector@bsu.edu

Michael J. Hicks, PhD, is the director of the Center for Business and Economic Research and the George and Frances Ball distinguished professor of economics in the Miller College of Business at Ball State University. Hicks earned doctoral and master’s degrees in economics from the University of Tennessee and a bachelor’s degree in economics from Virginia Military Institute. He has authored two books and more than 60 scholarly works focusing on state and local public policy, including tax and expenditure policy and the impact of Wal-Mart on local economies.

© Center for Business and Economic Research, Ball State University

About Ball State CBER Data Center

Ball State CBER Data Center is one-stop shop for economic data including demographics, education, health, and social capital. Our easy-to-use, visual web tools offer data collection and analysis for grant writers, economic developers, policy makers, and the general public.

Ball State CBER Data Center (cberdata.org) is a product of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University. CBER's mission is to conduct relevant and timely public policy research on a wide range of economic issues affecting the state and nation. Learn more.

Terms of Service

Center for Business and Economic Research

Ball State University • Whitinger Business Building, room 149
2000 W. University Ave.
Muncie, IN 47306-0360
Phone:
765-285-5926
Email:
cber@bsu.edu
Website:
www.bsu.edu/cber
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/BallStateCBER
Twitter:
www.twitter.com/BallStateCBER
Close