Shiller acredita em Papai Noel!

Que pena que perdi esse “presente” do dia de Natal! Em “Estímulo, sem mais endividamento”, Robert Shiller (aqui) “resolve” o problema econômico, alegando, através da aplicação do “multiplicador do orçamento equilibrado” (igual a 1), que as coisas podem melhorar sensivelmente:

But the balanced-budget multiplier is simpler to judge: If the government spends the money directly on goods and services, that activity goes directly into national income. And with a balanced budget, there is no clear reason to expect further repercussions. People have jobs again: end of story.

Teria sido muito mais útil e interessante se, ao invés de “apelar”, tivesse explorado as razões para o país não ter caído em depressão após o fim da guerra. A expectativa desse evento é que havia levado Paul Samuelson a chamar a atenção para o multiplicador do orçamento equilibrado em 1943:

Economists embraced this multiplier because it seemed to offer a solution to a looming problem: a possible repeat of the Great Depression after wartime stimulus was withdrawn, and when new rounds of deficit spending might be impossible because of the federal government’s huge, war-induced debt.

It turns out that this worry was unfounded. The Depression did not return after the war. But in the early 1940s, economists justifiably saw the possibility as their biggest concern. Their discussions have been mostly forgotten because they didn’t have much relevance for public policy — until now, that is, when we again have a huge federal debt and a vulnerable economy.

Nota: Segundo o MOE, um aumento do gasto público acompanhado de um aumento de imposto calibrado de tal maneira que ao final das contas o aumento da receita será igual ao aumento do gasto, aumenta a renda no exato montante do aumento do gasto.