The Shotgun Blog
Sunday, September 11, 2005
I mentioned near the end of an earlier posting today that David Dodge, Governor of the Bank of Canada, is concerned about the fact that there is such a huge imbalance between the spending in the US and the saving in the Asian economies. After writing those few lines, I had an opportunity to read the full text of Dodge's prepared remarks [thanks for sending the link, Sean]. Here are some excerpts that do not appear in the MSM [main stream media].
But we should not look to exchange rate movements alone to resolve the existing global imbalances. Within the United States, higher interest rates can be expected to lead to increased savings. Authorities could also encourage greater national savings with a tighter fiscal policy. And they could implement structural reforms to encourage national savings through taxation, social security premiums, and other measures.
But if the United States alone were to act to resolve its imbalance by taking the steps I've just described, it would leave the global economy with much weaker aggregate demand. And so a number of other countries must focus on stimulating domestic demand. This task is made more urgent by the fact that the global economy is currently operating somewhat below capacity. The fact that inflationary pressures are absent globally is evidence of this.
So, how can we stimulate domestic demand outside the United States? Clearly, monetary authorities bear most of the responsibility for stabilizing domestic output in the short run and moving their own economies towards full production capacity. But monetary policy may not be as effective as it could be, if there are problems with an economy's structural or fiscal policies. Thus, the appropriate policy prescription depends on each country's circumstances. Structural reforms to remove market rigidities are important for most of us. Many need to improve or develop their financial system so that savings can be more effectively channeled into investment and households can have improved access to credit. For some, the development of social safety nets would be helpful, so citizens don't feel the need to hold excessive precautionary savings. And for a few, more stimulative fiscal policy would be helpful.
What he said in a nutshell: Eventually the US will have to stop its profligacy, and when they do, the global economy will slow down, perhaps severly. To offset these effects, others will have to stimulate their economies, perhaps via fiscal policy.
If he is correct, then for the sake of long-run efficiency I hope the fiscal policy chosen in Canada is tax cuts instead of increased gubmnt spending. But I won't hold my breath.
Posted by EclectEcon on September 11, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fiscal Inevitability?:
"If he is correct, then for the sake of long-run efficiency I hope the fiscal policy chosen in Canada is tax cuts instead of increased gubmnt spending. But I won't hold my breath."
Well said, EE. Unfortunately for us, when the only tool that government drones possess is a hammer then everything looks like a nail. Actually they have taxation, welfare and inflation in their toolbox, so you could say they have a hammer, a sickle and an atom bomb.
Reading between the lines of Dodge's speech, he is encouraging politicians to dream up more ways of invading the economy and their citizens' private lives (while at the same time lining their own pockets) in the name of "stimulating" something or other. It reeks of contempt for ordinary people - the idea that if left alone by their governments plain old folks would be perfectly capable of investing in the productive businesses all on their own, and can balance their own consumption and savings, is an alien thought to Dodge. If he _does_ actually believe in anything like that, then he is a being a good lapdog to his socialist paymasters and carefully censoring those ideas from his speeches.
Dodge concludes his speech:
"So it is critical for policy-makers to act now, so there can be an increase in demand and investment to compensate for the increase in desired savings."
He claims that an increase in "desired savings" causes a lack of investment. Unless you keep your money in a cookie jar, then savings are investment. And when money is invested, it still creates jobs - who does he think builds the factories and machinery that are purchased with capital? What an incredible idiot - or he thinks we're idiots.
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2005-09-11 1:34:46 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.