OK let's switch to English. Since this is kind of a pseudo autistic blogging - almost a geeky version of a personal journal -, I can do it in whatever language I choose at the time (off course I wouldn't do it in German, why would I?).
So, enough small talk, let's get to it.
How should public finance affect economic growth? It's not a philosophical question, I'm thinking about Brazil (It sucks to spell Brasil with 'z') and US in the last 5 years or so.
They are almost symmetrically the opposite of each other. While the US is starting to show some signs of recovery in the 6th year of the current liquidity trap, Brazil is in an awkward situation in which the economy is overheated and presents a zero growth rate at the same time, let´s call it the steamroller trap.
On the good news front, US private deleveraging process seems to be reaching a healthier stage, household debt to GDP ratio dropped 17 base points in the last 5 years (1). Thus, the liquidity trap symptoms appear to be receding. Yankee unemployment rate is falling - partly because some people quit looking for jobs though- (2) and GDP is bouncing back (3), but it probably won’t resume the previous growth patch, as expected. Nevertheless, unemployment is still above pre-crisis level (2), employment to population ratio have shown a mild recovery at best (4) and the Fed expects the inflation to stay below target at least until 2016 (5).
So, what kind of role did public finance played in that picture? Well, total federal expenditures increased at the beginning of the lesser depression but it stagnated as soon as the 2nd quarter of 2010, when the stimulus faded out almost completely (6).
Therefore, I'd conclude that the stimulus measures avoided a deeper slump, whereas the premature turn to austerity prolonged the painful deleveraging process that have been keeping the American economy in this lowflation trap.
I'll get to Brazil later.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Source: FOMC
6.
No comments:
Post a Comment