• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • A Fifth Keynesian 'Stimulus'?

    The concept of a Keynesian stimulus never seems to tire among politicians eager to grow the economy artificially by spending other people’s money.

    Recently, Obama’s Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack encouraged expanding SNAP, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program aimed to help the poor, as a way to stimulate the economy. “Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity. If people are able to buy a little more in the grocery store, someone has to stock it, package it, shelve it, process it, ship it. All of those are jobs. It’s the most direct stimulus you can get in the economy during these tough times,” he said.

    Still others are calling for additional hundreds of billions in stimulus spending as part of any deficit reduction deal coming out of the ‘supercommittee.’ If either of these ideas takes hold, it would be the fifth major Keynesian experiment since 2000. And rest assured, it would be its fifth failure.

    If Secretary Vilsack is right, and if high systemic unemployment is the problem, then why not suggest a doubling of the SNAP program?  The evidence now aligns with the theory, however, as our lawmakers have tried it four times already in quantities never before seriously contemplated, yet the unemployment rate remains above 9 percent and seems likely to stay at or above that lofty level for months, if not years, to come.

    The idea that government can boost “aggregate demand” by spending sounds attractive, especially when resources are “idle” in the economy.

    The argument is that during a recession people have less money to spend in general, and often increase their saving out of fear, all of which results in less consumer spending, or “demand,” in the economy, and therefore output (GDP) and employment fall. The economy is said to be operating below full capacity at this point. The policy argument then is that only government can step in to fill the drop in total demand by increasing deficit spending.

    The problem with this reasoning, however, is deficit spending means more government borrowing which means less capital is available to the private sector.  Even in a recession, savings don’t drop out of the economy. The financial system, which intermediates between saving and investing, between sources of funds and uses of funds, continues to function.  Savings are channeled to investment or to spending by others and so contribute to the economy dollar-for-dollar as equally as consumer spending or government deficit spending. To borrow a line from the movie “Wall Street:” money never sleeps.

    As my former colleague Brian Riedl put it, the economy doesn’t care if I spend $100 on baseball cards or if I save that $100 by putting it in a bank savings account, so that it’s lent out to someone else to spend on a pair of shoes. Either way, the $100 flows through the economy. At this point, some may ask: “Well wait a minute, what about when an economy is really depressed and no one is spending much?” Even in the case where total savings increase, banks don’t sit on idle cash in savings accounts. They would lose money doing so. At the very least, banks invest that money in government treasuries, or T-bills, so the former owners of the treasuries then supply them to the financial system to seek out those who need the funding.

    That’s why having government put idle resources to use in one place requires equal idling of resources in another place: Government can only transfer money from one part of the economy to another, with no net increase in demand.

    The key, then, to increasing growth in the economy is for the economy to better align resources with needs, to reduce the harmful uncertainty in the economy which reduces growth-generating risk-taking, and to encourage productivity growth through investment in productive capital in all its forms.  The resulting growth will organically raise both total supply and total demand.

    One key to get people to produce more is to reduce the disincentives to do so by allowing people to keep more of what they produce – i.e., tax rate reductions at the margins of income and investment.

    So, regardless of what one thinks of the humanitarian imperative of increasing money for SNAP, or for additional “stimulus” money in other forms put forth by the ‘supercommittee,’ neither is an economic stimulus.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    9 Responses to A Fifth Keynesian 'Stimulus'?

    1. ricp says:

      $1 in government SNAP spending generates $1.84 in economic activity; but the question is how many federally collected tax dollars does it take to generate $1.00 in SNAP benefits? Please don't believe the government that there is no OVERHEAD associated with its operation as they are trying to imply here. I'd be willing to bet that the answer to this question is something like "$12.50 of collected tax revenue by the government generates $1.00 in SNAP benefits which equals $1.84! in economic activity!"

    2. Paul says:

      The margin of profit in a food store is one penny for every dollar spent. Low but a fact.

      Thus if a person on food stamps spends all $200 in that store the store would have made $2 on that person.

      Wages and benefits to hire one person are $50,000

      Divide 50,000 by two = 25,000 and that’s how many food stamp recipients it would take to create one job.

      45 million 45,000,000 divided by 25,000

      = 1800 jobs created by this program
      Even if assumptions were off a tad go ahead and double it you get but 3600 jobs max.

    3. jemc50 says:

      The Administration will keep applying Keynesian economics until it either works or the country is broke. Wait….the country is broke and they are still trying it.

      What was that definition of insanity, again?

    4. Jeff, Illinois says:

      Yet the basis of Keynesian economics is about demand . . You have to have demand . . ! Supply side economics has no proven merit . .

    5. George says:

      Unemployment is really around 23%, not 9%.
      Please do not understate the truth.
      Overall, a great article.
      This article further exposes the total failure of Keynesian big government economics.

    6. Jeanne Stotler says:

      None of this says what it cost the store/s to collect from the food-stamp cards. The old adage still applies, "Buy a man a fish and he has a meal, teach a man to fish and he eats for life" we have way too amny people who believe they are intitled to food stamps and make no effort to get off of them, some are into the fourth generation on them, We need stronger rules, no one should be on the dole for life and never work. Although many work under the table and the latest was someone selling their food stamps, all speaks of fraud.

    7. jim deffendall says:

      They can't seem to get past the block by block meantality.

    8. Jon Weiss says:

      Trying the same action over and over expecting a different result is the very epitome of insanity. I think that doing something five times when it has failed the four previous just might qualify, for that "insanity" title. Obama's economic policy is indeed insanity in one of it's purest forms.

    9. Marty says:

      The thing about Keynesian economics that is missed here is that Lord Keynes said it was OK to borrow to stimulate the eceonomy as long as you pay the money back in the short run. US politicians have been good about the first part, borrowing, but have forgotten the second part. Keynes, when asked why he only discussed matters in terms of the short run made the famous quote "In the long run you are dead". This is exactly what he ment, You cannot do short term stimulus with long term debt.

      Keynes Economics is working exactly as he calculated. In the long run you are dead.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.