[S]timulus spending is the Pascal’s Wager of economics. Seventeenth century philosopher Blaise Pascal couldn’t prove God existed, but figured he might as well be devout since, if there is a God, he’s saved from damnation. If there wasn’t, well, no harm in trying. Politicians see stimulus spending the same way. They can’t prove it works, but if they sit on their hands during a downturn, they know they’ll be blamed for inaction should things turn worse. If and when the economy recovers, as it has here, the government’s happy to take credit. And if more misery comes? They can at least claim to have staved off larger calamity — which is how it’s gone in the U.S., where they’re now spending their third stimulus package in two years.
Politicians are only acting rationally. Last year, they were convinced they faced another Great Depression. [. . .]
Get used to this. Since the narrative that stimulus spending pulled us back from the abyss works for Ottawa, it virtually guarantees that, when dark economic clouds are again sighted from Parliament Hill, we’ll see this routine recur: Dire recession warnings from politicians, followed by stimulus as insurance to cover political hides from any economic blame. As long as future taxpayers get the bill, via future debt payments, it’s as risk-free a gambit as Pascal’s: The latest stimulus added tens of billions in national red ink with little political distress for the Tories.
Kevin Libin, “The Stimulus Bluff: There’s Mounting Evidence That Government Spending Has Had No Impact On The Economic Recovery. Too Bad Politicians Aren’t Listening”, National Post, 2010-06-01
June 1, 2010
QotD: The Pascal’s Wager of Economics
Comments Off on QotD: The Pascal’s Wager of Economics
No Comments
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
