The Multiplier Effect

The multiplier effect is how much a dollar spent by the government increases GDP. It also measures how much a tax decrease, or increase increases or decreases GDP. It is a contentious debate among economists.

Keynesians love to say that the multiplier effect of government spending increases GDP by 1.4%. For every dollar spent, you get a corresponding 1.4% bump in GDP. However, Christine Roemer’s own paper disproved that.  Krugman left himself a lot of wiggle room back in 2009.  He said the stimulus wasn’t big enough.  So today since we have seen the abject failure of Obama and the Democrats stimulus package, he can say “I told you so.”

Gary Becker and Kevin Murphy published this article way back when arguing that stimulus will do nothing.   If you want to see some math behind their points, the slides are linked here.  Tax cuts increase GDP by a factor of 3.  For every one percentage decline in taxes, GDP increases by 3%.  Of course, there are limits to that.  Once you go to 0% taxes, you can’t increase GDP by tax cuts anymore (duh).

It’s important to note that the difference between the two camps is this:  Keynesians believe in a central plan (government spending) to ramp up economic activity.  Classical economists believe in setting a data driven standard, and then letting entrepreneurial market forces reach that standard.

Now that the data is in.  We can make an objective judgement over government spending and the multiplier effect.  What has happened is that government spending contributed a net 0 to growth, just like Becker and Murphy posited before the money was spent.  In addition, the increase in federal debt has become a drag on the economy, and will eventually increase our borrowing costs.  S&P and the rest of the ratings agencies are watching US debt closely.

Keynesian economics ought to be tossed into the dustbin of history.  Too bad we can’t have a burial at sea.  Too many shrines to it already.

  • Amory47

    The phrase “today since we have seen the abject failure of Obama and the Democrats stimulus package” says it all. This is not the evidence based analysis it pretends to be. Rather it is a right wing diatribe intended to garner support for more tax cuts when there is no empirical evidence that they increase tax revenues.
    Wishful, biased thinking is not what’s needed here.

    • pointsnfigures

      Ha. The empirical analysis is in the math provided by Kevin Murphy and Gary Becker. In addition, we have actual on the ground evidence that stimulus spending doesn’t work. Feb 2009 was the largest stimulus in US history.

      So, yes, there is analysis. No, it’s not a right or left wing diatribe, but simple facts as evidence.

      • znmeb

        Show us *your* equations and data, not criticism of others.

        • pointsnfigures

          Links are embedded. Have at it.

    • pointsnfigures

      I should add, Christine Roemer’s own study corroborates the math of Kevin Murphy.

    • Dusty Thompson

      Liberalism is a dangerous Mental Disorder, thanks for the proof…

  • Pingback: Against A Balanced Budget Amendment | Points and Figures()

  • Pingback: No One is Happy With the Debt Deal | Points and Figures()

  • Pingback: Best Line I Heard All Week | Points and Figures()

  • Pingback: Cutting Taxes, Pro Growth or Not? | Points and Figures()

  • Pingback: The Coming Recession | Points and Figures()

  • Dusty Thompson

    It’s even simpler. Keynesian are anti American and should be treated as such.

  • Pingback: More Evidence of 0 | Points and Figures()

  • Pingback: Debt is Your Frenemy - Points and Figures | Points and Figures()