In recent weeks I have heard more and more media commentators, union officials and politicians claim that the Irish economy is so fragile that it could not possibly sustain "taking €6bn out of the economy" without bringing it completely to its knees. Now I don't want to debate whether or not the cutbacks are needed or fair or reasonable or possible or what should be cut. Let's just asume that the cuts will actually be made.
The short answer to the above question: No
A slightly longer answer to the above question: No, the polar opposite is true
The longer answer goes as follows. A government that spends money has to either (a) tax it out of the economy or (b) borrow the funds. Even in the latter situation, the money has to be repaid, plus interest, so this money also has to be taxed out of the economy. So no matter which way government spending is funded, it ultimately has to come through taxation of the economy.
This means that if a government spends €6bn less, then it has to take €6bn less out of the economy. At the very best, the economy would neither gain nor lose, as the €6bn in less spending by government allows for €6bn more spending/investment in the productive economy. This of course would assume that government does not spend the money wastefully, which would be quite an erroneous assumption to make.
Bottom line is that €6bn in spending cuts will result in €6bn more in the productive economy than otherwise would have been available. And the more capital there is in the productive economy the more jobs there will be.
Are these commentators really that economically inept or is the public really that gullible to not notice this obvious fact?
The short answer to the above question: No
A slightly longer answer to the above question: No, the polar opposite is true
The longer answer goes as follows. A government that spends money has to either (a) tax it out of the economy or (b) borrow the funds. Even in the latter situation, the money has to be repaid, plus interest, so this money also has to be taxed out of the economy. So no matter which way government spending is funded, it ultimately has to come through taxation of the economy.
This means that if a government spends €6bn less, then it has to take €6bn less out of the economy. At the very best, the economy would neither gain nor lose, as the €6bn in less spending by government allows for €6bn more spending/investment in the productive economy. This of course would assume that government does not spend the money wastefully, which would be quite an erroneous assumption to make.
Bottom line is that €6bn in spending cuts will result in €6bn more in the productive economy than otherwise would have been available. And the more capital there is in the productive economy the more jobs there will be.
Are these commentators really that economically inept or is the public really that gullible to not notice this obvious fact?