En esta ponencia Mario Rizzo, economista y blogger en ThinkMarkets, explica las causas de la actual crisis, por qué el estímulo aprovado en el Congreso estadounidense fomentará o reforzará la malinversión y los desajustes en la economía, y qué clase de estímulo necesita la economía para salir más rápido de la crisis.
Copio el cuarto punto de su charla, su propuesta de "estímulo" a base de recortes de impuestos a todos los niveles y reducción pareja del gasto público (en otras palabras, un estímulo descentralizado llevado a cabo por familias y empresas en lugar de un "estímulo" financiado con déficit público y destinado a sufragar los más variados proyectos mascota del partido dominante). Muy atinada aunque políticamente imposible dadas las presiones y el clima de opinión actual.
The first thing to keep in mind is that activities that prevent or inhibit the re-allocation of resources out of their bubble-induced misdirected uses will only prolong the current recession. This kind of stimulus is not better than nothing. It is worse than nothing.
My own preference is: First, allow market adjustments to take place. When economic agents are confident that prices will be allowed to equilibrate, they will begin to take action in both financial and economic areas. Values of resources and assets will become more transparent. It may be necessary also to devise transaction-cost reducing structures to allow for the efficient valuation of complex assets.
Secondly, the current atmosphere of uncertainty has created an increase in the demand to hold money and a reluctance to lend, borrow, invest and consume. And yet the dangers of an outright deflation seem slim. Nevertheless, a neutral stimulation of spending may do some good.
By “neutral” stimulation I mean one than does not encourage unsustainable lines of spending and production or reinforce the misdirection of resources. Tax reductions seem to be the only likely candidates. This is because, to the extent that they encourage economic activity, they do so in accordance with the voluntary decisions of economic agents. This are more likely to express the underlying preferences of consumers-investors and resource owners and hence be sustainable.
Simple rebates and lump-sum credits, however, are not as likely to work as reduction in marginal rates. This is because the former do not offer incentives that will tend to offset the disincentives to spend generated by generalized uncertainty.
And this reduction should be across the board. It is important that taxes on capital income be reduced. It would also be useful to cut or even abolish the corporate income tax in part to increase the internal financing of businesses and make them less dependent on bank credit or other forms of external finance.
If the tax revisions are going to favor only the “middle class” (I am not quite sure what this means), then the incentives to invest will probably not be enhanced. Even Keynes did not think that consumption spending could lead us out of slumps.
However, to avoid the impact of later tax increases or inflation to pay for the current tax reductions, a credible commitment must be made to cut government spending later. A very liberal use of sunset provisions should be made in spending bills. Even more radical, but perhaps politically infeasible, is the idea the current legislation should incorporate a “sense of Congress” that renewals of spending will require a two-thirds vote in favor. And, of course, a commitment to entitlement reform must be also made.
Unfortunately, the temper of the times has it that tax cuts, especially for the “rich,” are the cause of our woes. It also has it that middle-class entitlements are a problem only later on.
To make lasting progress toward recovery, these ideas reflecting current delusions must be fought and refuted.
