Home Economics The Missing Part Of The Krugman Logic Over A Low Fertility Economy

The Missing Part Of The Krugman Logic Over A Low Fertility Economy

Author

Comments

Paul Krugman tells us that everything will be different in a low fertility economy. Because part of the way that we gain full employment is that businesses need the capital that households are saving in order to cater to the desires of that rising population that doesn’t happen in a low fertility economy.

So, in a low fertility country government will need to suck up that capital that households want to save and deploy it in order to gain that full employment.

For what we’re looking at here is a world awash in savings with nowhere to go: Households are eager to lend money out, but businesses don’t see enough good investment opportunities. (Bitcoin doesn’t count.) Well, why not put the money to work for the public good? Why not borrow cheaply and use the funds to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, invest in the health and education of our children, and more? This would be good for our society, good for the future, and would also provide a cushion against future recessions.

Take the argument as is. Don’t try to start thinking that perhaps a low fertility economy will be one in which households save less, thus killing the problem. Partly because that’s not the point here but also because it would likely work the other way anyway.

OK. So, now, why is it that government should do this borrowing and investing?

One argument is that the returns from doing so won’t be good enough to tempt private business into doing it. But that’s an argument that the investments shouldn’t be made, that the return from doing them aren’t worth it.

OK, so government can borrow cheaper but that’s something that will fade. The original set up is, note, that the price of capital is going to fall for all for demographic reasons. That will make the typical capitalist 8% hurdle rate too high as well. This argument that there should be more investment when capital is cheap applies to everyone, not just government.

There is also the point that asking government to do it – even at their lower financing cost – is an insistence that government is going to do it only slightly more inefficiently than price business would. When we’re talking about education, as an example, that’s a difficult one to support. Just compare public school budgets and those of parochial schools.

We can even go further, say the education of children. So, households will be awash with savings that the capitalists don’t want. Our very definition of the situation we’re in is that each family has few children. Why can’t – or even why wouldn’t – households spend their cash on educating their own children? What does government have to do with this?

And that’s the real point here, the gap in the argument. Sure, we have publicly paid infrastructure, publicly financed school systems. But while these might be good for the public they’re not actually public goods, where we have a private sector financing problem. It just happens that we do these things publicly right now.

At which point why don’t we argue that – assuming everything already being argued by Krugman – government should do that borrowing and use it to produce actual public goods. Basic research for example. And success on that front would then solve all the other problems. As major new technologies – because of course government will uncover such, Mazzucato, recall? – arrive then there will be ahunger for investment capital among the capitalists which neatly solves the household savings and thus full employment problems.

Plus everyone gets richer instead of just the construction and teachers’ unions. Sounds like a plan really unless the unions was the point in the first place?

SUPPORT US WITH A SUBSCRIPTION?

2 COMMENTS

  1. I would ask if employment is necessary if you have plenty of money. Certainly the latest whinge from the US suggests that if unemployment benefits are greater than the wage you can earn, people don’t take the job.

    Though I certainly have nothing against basic research. After all, if we do enough of it, we won’t need employment. Our robot slaves will keep us in the idleness and luxury to which we all wish to become accustomed.

  2. Japan is famously a low-fertility country. All the Japanese people I know are saving like buggery in order that their future selves can afford to stay alive. And on Bogan’s “I’ve got money, bugger the job!”, my friend in Tokyo is happy to work three days a week ‘cos she’s got plenty of savings, as does my ex-wife here in the UK. I don’t have loads of savings, so the same rule applies, and I work my tits off trying to get as much nest egg as possible so I can join their lifestyle.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

expunct

in British English
expunct (ɪkˈspʌŋkt)
VERB (transitive)
1. to delete or erase; blot out; obliterate
2. to wipe out or destroy

Support Us

Recent posts

Expunct comes of age (sorta)

Today is the proper one year anniversary of the launch of expunct. It's been a rollercoaster but we wanted to create a site to...

We Can Help Salon Out Here Over Abortion And The Biden Administration

It's entirely true that abortion is one of those difficult questions. It's even true that the answers rather divide Americans. However, it's still possible...

Nick Dearden Really Is A Ghastly Oik

Dearden is from Global Justice Now - the usual bunch of Trots who never quite have left mother's basement. Their political views haven't advanced...

So Here’s The Actual Complaint About Amazon’s Diversity

It's possible that Amazon is simply packed full of thuggish racists who delight in keeping the poor folk down. Possible, even if perhaps a...

Government Health Care Causes Corruption

This isn't what Transparency International quite means to say here but it is indeed what they are saying. Government provided health care leads to...

Recent comments