Note that there is a third source of income for the domestic private sector—exports, the dotted line—but at least in the medium term nobody has a good idea of how to juice exports enough to make a difference.
So the question, then, is: Why oppose more fiscal stimulus, when spending money translates exactly into the private sector income that's so desperately needed.
Well, credit to Ponnurru and Beckworth, they don't say that the US is in danger of becoming the next Greece.
Instead they argue something more subtle:
The Fed has refused to take such steps largely because it fears that a dangerous level of inflation would result. That’s a foolish fear: Inflation has been low for the last few years, and the market for inflation-indexed bonds suggests that investors expect low inflation for years to come.
But the Fed’s fear has an implication that liberals overlook. It means that the current “multiplier” from fiscal stimulus—the amount of extra economic activity new deficit spending will generate—is zero at most. That’s because the more fiscal stimulus Congress provides, the less monetary easing the Fed feels inclined to offer. Liberals feel they are compensating for the Fed’s lack of action, but they are really just encouraging it: the main effect of any current fiscal stimulus is not to expand the economy but to shift economic activity around (and especially to shift it from the private to the public sector). Spending may have an economic payoff if it raises the nation’s productive capacity, but it won’t increase total economic activity in the near term because monetary policy, given the Fed’s predilections, will adjust in response to the stimulus.
There are a few things here that need to be disputed.
First of all, even if there is no "multiplier" whatsoever to government spending, that's okay, since as we established before there's a dollar-for-dollar connection between spending and private sector income. And every dollar helps.
Second, this idea that the Fed would be reticent to do anything if Congress got more proactive seems far-fetched. Certainly Bernanke seems pretty clear that he wants to do a lot (and is willing to do more) but would also like to see the Congress.
And finally, this idea that "the main effect of any current fiscal stimulus is not to expand the economy but to shift economic activity around (and especially to shift it from the private to the public sector)." is just plain weird. If the government hires someone to, say, dig a ditch (to use a job that anti-Keynesians like to parody) then that person is gaining income without any "subtraction" from another part of the income. Obviously it would be better to have the person do something productive (like repair a bridge) than dig a ditch, in which case you're not only giving someone income, but your doing something that benefits society.
What's more, hiring people who are unemployed to do productive things actually achieves what Ponnuru and Beckworth want, which is higher wage inflation.
For example, the mere announcement that the Fed will buy assets until nominal spending hits a target, for example, could raise expectations for nominal-spending growth. If debtors expect higher nominal income as a result, they will devote fewer resources to deleveraging. If investors expect higher nominal spending, they will rebalance their portfolios away from cash and toward higher-yield assets such as stocks, bidding prices up. Higher asset values then lead to increases in spending on both consumption and investment. The more aggressive the Fed’s announcement, in fact, the fewer assets it will likely have to actually buy.
But the real impediment to wage inflation isn't that the Fed hasn't set a big enough number, it's that we have massive unemployment and excess capacity creating slack in the labor market. Get rid of that slack by putting people to work doing anything, and you start to get the wage firmness (inflation) you desire.
And beyond that, it's just intuitive. If you take the average person, ask them what will cause them to spend more money: A policy announcement from Bernanke, or the promise of a well-paying job for years to come. The answer is obvious.
It's clear that more aggressive fiscal policy gets right to the heart of the matter: Putting money in people's pockets, easing their debt to income, creating wage inflation, and creating the kind of confidence and certainty that will allow people to spend.
More aggressive monetary may not do anything bad, but at a time when people want less debt, it's just not going to accomplish that much.
This story originally appeared on Business Insider
Read more from Business Insider:
» LIVE: Mario Draghi's First Press Conference As ECB President
» MF Global Could Be The First Part Of A Systemic Crisis
» REMINDER: Here's Who Will Get Crushed If Italy Goes Bust
» ECB SHOCKER: Draghi Cuts Rates By 25bps
Questions? Comments? Email us atNetNet@cnbc.com
Follow NetNet on Twitter @ twitter.com/CNBCnetnet
Facebook us @ www.facebook.com/NetNetCNBC