Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 7 Share on Twitter 1 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds    H4'ed 7/29/12

Incentivizing Economic Growth

By       (Page 2 of 2 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.   1 comment
Become a Premium Member Would you like to know how many people have read this article? Or how reputable the author is? Simply sign up for a Advocate premium membership and you'll automatically see this data on every article. Plus a lot more, too.
Author 76783
Message Seymour Patterson

The country is well served when researchers and political constituents avoid ideology and strive for eclecticism, which allows one to be open minded to what works from the broad menu of economic thinking out there. One line of thinking makes the case for tax cuts and/or government expenditure increases to stimulate demand--hence, stimulus spending. Another point of view posits that the evil culprit is the looming deficit, which needs to be brought under control. To achieve control of the deficit, government spending must be cut. In this instance, the catalyst to economic recovery is the restoration of business confidence. We are looking at two diametrically polar views of what to do about a recession using the same instrument, fiscal policy--(1) increase in government spending (stimulus), and (2) cut in government spending (deficit management). Is there a way forward out of this conundrum?

Allow me to propose a way out. First, there is a way of thinking that smacks of heresy in some quarters because it has a tinge of socialism, but by way of disclaimer, it is one to which this author does not ascribe in the extreme. Having said that, suppose instead of cutting police, teachers, and firefighters' jobs, the government (and/or the private) sector institutes job-creating policies in both sectors of the economy--private and public.  However, in the present political climate, tax increases are, of course, not on the table--they're verbatim--because the political acrimony between the two parties leaves no room for compromise on this. But if the workweek were reduced to 35 hours, the retirement age rolled back to 62 for men and 60 for women, and the minimum wage raised, firms will need to hire more workers to achieve the same level of output at 35 hours as at 40 hours a week. An earlier retirement age will create vacancies for replacement workers. Then of course, a higher minimum wage puts more purchasing power into the hands of workers. If the lack of demand is the source of the economic problem the country faces, these steps will have the positive effect of raising the demand for goods and services. Now, when demand rises, other factors of growth will kick in, too. And the Fed's potency in achieving a policy pass-through from interest rates to investment could be facilitated by this strategy--i.e. the increase in demand from additional employment with implementation of the 35 hours workweek, the lower retirement age, and the increase in the minimum wage would lift business profits. In turn, the larger profit margins will incentivize new business investment. There is another piece to this; that is, low interest rates signal that the U.S. is a good credit risk although political infighting during the recent budget debate around spending and the debt ceiling led to a credit downgrade. S&P dinged the U.S. credit rating from its esteemed AAA to AA+. However, America is still far and away a safe harbor for dollar denominated interest-bearing assets.

If there were ever a good opportunity to borrow dirt-cheap it is now. The current economic climate--this rare moment in history of low interest rates will pass and not soon return, perhaps not in our lifetimes. But banks and other lending institutions stand in the way of easing like petulant kids stomping their feet on the pavement; they refuse to shake loose of their excess reserves, and the Fed's tactical moral suasion efforts so far have failed.

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).


Well Said 1   Supported 1   Interesting 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Seymour Patterson Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Seymour Patterson received a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Oklahoma in 1980. He has taught courses and done research in international economics and economic development. He has been the recipient of two Fulbright awards--the first in (more...)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Burden of Education on Students Grows but It Shouldn't

Fiscal-Policy Obstruction to Economic Recovery

Is Growing Ethnic Diversity a bad thing?

Minimum Wage, Unemployment Benefits, and Income Inequality Connection

Startups and small business create most new jobs

On Income Inequality and Economic Growth

To View Comments or Join the Conversation: