A Quote by James Surowiecki

Popular as Keynesian fiscal policy may be, many economists are skeptical that it works. They argue that fine-tuning the economy is a virtually impossible task, and that fiscal-stimulus programs are usually too small, and arrive too late, to make a difference.
At the federal level, the fiscal stimulus of 2008 and 2009 supported economic output, but the effects of that stimulus faded; by 2011, federal fiscal policy actions became a drag on output growth when the recovery was still weak.
A wide range of possible fiscal policy tools and approaches could enhance the cyclical stability of the economy. For example, steps could be taken to increase the effectiveness of the automatic stabilizers, and some economists have proposed that greater fiscal support could be usefully provided to state and local governments during recessions.
Japan has introduced fiscal stimulus five times in the past seven or eight years and each time it's been a failure and that's not a surprise. Fiscal stimulus is not stimulating in and of itself.
What saved the economy, and the New Deal, was the enormous public works project known as World War II, which finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy’s needs.
Too many members of Congress are too involved in grabbing what they can for their states or districts without enough emphasis on overall fiscal restraint for the sake of the nation as a whole. We need a new era of fiscal sanity. I am not willing to subject my children and grandchildren to the level of debt that Congress has created.
The administration's reckless plan doesn't do one thing to ensure the long term security of social security, rather it undermines our economy. We need a budget and a fiscal policy that reflects the values and interests of America and restores fiscal discipline.
The Keynesian idea is once again accepted that fiscal policy and deficit spending has a major role to play in guiding a market economy. I wish Friedman were still alive so he could witness how his extremism led to the defeat of his own ideas.
It is true that the role of the state in the Russian economy may be too big today, but from the fiscal standpoint, it is not always practical to do this in a falling market.
There is a very serious fiscal-policy question of, 'Are we running our overall fiscal policy such that we as a government can pay our bills?'
One of the things I think is very likely is that with the prospects of robust fiscal stimulus in response to voters mad as hell, the Fed is going to be in there with helicopter money. In other words, they're going to be buying whatever the Treasury issues. They're not going to, in effect, advocate strong fiscal stimulus and then not finance it. And that's helicopter money.
As always, it would be important to ensure that any fiscal policy changes did not compromise long-run fiscal sustainability.
When you're facing the threat of recession, you need to have an expansionary monetary and fiscal policy. Pre-Keynesian, Hooverite views are dead everywhere except on 19th Street in Washington.
Aggregate aid is to the Ethiopian economy what Obama's fiscal stimulus was to the American economy: minus these injections, both economies would suffer catastrophically. The theatrical blustering of the Ethiopian government notwithstanding, donor countries have a make-or-break power over the Ethiopia's prosperity.
I've always believed in expansionary monetary policy and if necessary fiscal policy when the economy is depressed.
Where fiscal space is low, fiscal policy needs to adjust in a growth-friendly manner to ensure public debt is on a sustainable path, while protecting the most vulnerable.
Too often in recent history liberal governments have been wrecked on rocks of loose fiscal policy.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!