In keeping with our European-economy watching over the last several posts, we read one that's more UK-centric; but the following from it still shows the universality of the various issues.
Now, we could be arguing for months about multipliers. Most probably inconclusively, as their size depends on a multitude of factors. But it is undeniable that any action on the numerator of the deficit (or debt) ratio implies adverse effects on the denominator, that is GDP; and that these effects are likely to be larger in times of crisis, when private expenditure is particularly weak. Italy, Spain, Portugal, and especially Greece, are there to prove it. On the contrary, in periods of crisis, acting on the denominator is certainly more successful, because more likely to reverse the deflationary spiral, and to trigger a virtuous circle of increasing income and tax revenues. At least for crisis stricken economies, the key to fiscal sustainability is the denominator of the ratio. Even the IMF famously backtracked on the size of multipliers, and expressed doubts if not on current austerity per se, certainly on its size and pace.
In 1937 Keynes famously said that “The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury.” People in Brussels, and Chancellor Osborne, should really go back to the classics.
What do you think? Did Keynes have it right: "The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury"? Should we really ask the government to get completely out of attempting stabilization and stimulus? Should we really ride out recessions/depressions so that only "organic" rebuilding (without the government picking winners) should happen? Could we wait?
Is our slow recovery better than the extreme depths we would hit possibly followed by more rapid growth than would otherwise occur?
Are there, however, better choices than Keynesian monetarism on one hand and Austrian School economics (austerity) on the other?
Does the debate go back only to two competing theories: 1) deregulation of the financial sector caused the problem or 2) governmental intervention in the form of artificially low interest rates cause the problem.
Was it a combination of the two?
We live in interesting times.
If you are an investor in 1-4 unit properties in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, or Washington, please do the financially responsible thing and make sure you have proper Landlord Insurance with PropertyPak™. We love focusing on real estate and the economy in general, but we are also here to serve your insurance needs.
Hill & Usher (PropertyPak™ is a division) has many insurance offerings. See our menu above for more info and links.
Did this post help you? Let us know by leaving your comment below.
Note: This blog does not provide legal, financial, or accounting advice. Seek professional counsel.
Furthermore, we, as insurance producers, are prohibited by law from disparaging the insurance industry, carriers, other producers, etc. With that in mind, we provide links without staking out positions that violate the law. We provide them solely from a public-policy standpoint wherein we encourage our industry to be sure our profits, etc., are fair and balanced.
We do not necessarily fact checked the contents of every linked article or page, etc.
If we were to conclude any part or parts of our industry are in violation of fundamental fairness and the legal standards of a state or states, we'd address the issue through proper, legal channels. We trust you understand.
The laws that tie our tongues, so to speak, are designed to keep the public from losing confidence in the industry and the regulatory system overseeing it. Insurance commissioners around the country work very hard to analyze rates and to not allow the industry to be damaged by bad rate-settings and changes in coverages. The proper way for people in the industry to deal with such matters is by adhering to the laws, rules, and regulations of the applicable states and within industry associations where such matters may be discussed in private without giving the industry unnecessary black eyes. Ethics is very high on the list in the insurance industry, and we don't want to lose the people's trust. That said, the industry is not perfect; but what industry is?
For our part, we believe in strong regulations and strong regulators.
We welcome your comments and ask you to keep in mind that we cannot and will not reply in any way or ways where any insurance commissioner could rightly say we've violated the law of the given state.
We are allowed to share rating-bureau data/reports and industry-consultant opinions but make clear here that those opinions are theirs and do not necessarily reflect our position.