Read on Twitter
100% this.
In *normal* times, fiscal rules can be important & useful mechanisms to filter out policy options that aren't fiscally realistic or feasible. We are not in normal times.
[short thread follows with GOT memes]. https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1320793865587027969
In *normal* times, fiscal rules can be important & useful mechanisms to filter out policy options that aren't fiscally realistic or feasible. We are not in normal times.
[short thread follows with GOT memes]. https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1320793865587027969
In a live and on-going crisis, when you don't yet know the full scale, extent or duration of the real-world costs, why would gov't say "we'll intervene, but only up to $X fiscal cost"? That's akin to saying "after the costs of the crisis reach our threshold rule, we peace-out"
Winter is coming. A fiscal rule now will limit government spending, but it won't, on its own, ensure spending is on the right things to get us through to an actual recovery (which we are not yet in & anyone who says 'worst is over' is selling something).
Some fans of a fiscal anchor *now* might hope that it would focus the attention of policymakers, stop them from pursuing non-pandemic spending on pet projects. Let me just say that if the soaring case rates don't yet have their attention, then a fiscal anchor ain't an answer.
Intergenerational fairness matters in how we handle this crisis. Kids and youth today are already paying a very high price (in education, social development, physical and mental health, early employment experiences++).
Why wouldn't they be willing to amortize some of the fiscal costs of mitigating and managing those social/economic/private costs *IF* the money is used to ensure they have a brighter future than will be the case if we peace-out early 'cuz fiscal rule?
Ok, back to writing for me.
