Comment

Martin Feldstein
{"title":"Comment","authors":"Martin Feldstein","doi":"10.1086/658311","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This is a very timely paper. Thomas Laubach is to be commended for working in real time on this important issue. His analysis starts with an important analytic point: To understand the effect of fiscal conditions on interest rates, one must separate four effects: (1) traditional crowding out, (2) macroeconomic cyclical effects, (3) perceived risk of default, and (4) risk aversion with respect to the risk of default. These have played different roles in different countries and at different times. Laubach notes that only the first two have been relevant in the United States, with (in his judgment) the macrocyclical effects dominating. In the EuropeanMonetary Union (EMU) in recent years, default became more important, with differences in the country-specific risk becoming key since 2009 in explaining large increases in interest rates in several countries. I agree with this important analytic point. Measuring deficits. There are difficult problems in measuring fiscal deficits and future fiscal conditions, the key variables in Laubach’s analysis. He correctly notes that pure econometric forecasts of future deficits are inadequate.He therefore usesCongressional BudgetOffice (CBO) forecasts for the United States and OECD forecasts for the EMU countries. Laubach recognizes that these are quite imperfect as measures of the conceptually relevant variables. The CBO’s “baseline forecast” is required by law to project future deficits on the assumption that the existing lawwill continue in the future. There are also CBO forecasts based on the administration’s budget each year.While there are no forecasts based on consensus judgments about what legislative changes might occur in the future, the CBO’s Long Term Budget Outlook ( June 2010) contains an “Alternative Fiscal Scenario” that the CBO staff believes is themost likely outlook for future budget policies and the resulting deficits. It would be interesting to compare these informed judgmental forecasts with the CBO baseline figures to see howmisleading the latter might be. The data","PeriodicalId":353207,"journal":{"name":"NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/658311","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This is a very timely paper. Thomas Laubach is to be commended for working in real time on this important issue. His analysis starts with an important analytic point: To understand the effect of fiscal conditions on interest rates, one must separate four effects: (1) traditional crowding out, (2) macroeconomic cyclical effects, (3) perceived risk of default, and (4) risk aversion with respect to the risk of default. These have played different roles in different countries and at different times. Laubach notes that only the first two have been relevant in the United States, with (in his judgment) the macrocyclical effects dominating. In the EuropeanMonetary Union (EMU) in recent years, default became more important, with differences in the country-specific risk becoming key since 2009 in explaining large increases in interest rates in several countries. I agree with this important analytic point. Measuring deficits. There are difficult problems in measuring fiscal deficits and future fiscal conditions, the key variables in Laubach’s analysis. He correctly notes that pure econometric forecasts of future deficits are inadequate.He therefore usesCongressional BudgetOffice (CBO) forecasts for the United States and OECD forecasts for the EMU countries. Laubach recognizes that these are quite imperfect as measures of the conceptually relevant variables. The CBO’s “baseline forecast” is required by law to project future deficits on the assumption that the existing lawwill continue in the future. There are also CBO forecasts based on the administration’s budget each year.While there are no forecasts based on consensus judgments about what legislative changes might occur in the future, the CBO’s Long Term Budget Outlook ( June 2010) contains an “Alternative Fiscal Scenario” that the CBO staff believes is themost likely outlook for future budget policies and the resulting deficits. It would be interesting to compare these informed judgmental forecasts with the CBO baseline figures to see howmisleading the latter might be. The data
评论
这是一篇非常及时的论文。托马斯·劳巴赫在这一重要问题上的实时工作值得赞扬。他的分析从一个重要的分析点开始:为了理解财政状况对利率的影响,我们必须区分四种影响:(1)传统挤出效应,(2)宏观经济周期效应,(3)感知违约风险,(4)对违约风险的风险厌恶。它们在不同的国家和不同的时期扮演着不同的角色。劳巴赫指出,在美国,只有前两个因素是相关的,(在他看来)宏观周期效应占主导地位。近年来,在欧洲货币联盟(EMU),违约变得更加重要,自2009年以来,各国特定风险的差异成为解释几个国家利率大幅上升的关键。我同意这个重要的分析观点。测量赤字。在衡量财政赤字和未来财政状况方面存在困难,这是劳巴赫分析中的关键变量。他正确地指出,对未来赤字的纯计量经济学预测是不充分的。因此,他使用国会预算办公室(CBO)对美国的预测和经合组织对欧洲货币联盟国家的预测。劳巴赫认识到,作为概念相关变量的度量,这些是相当不完善的。国会预算办公室的“基线预测”是法律要求的,它是在现有法律在未来继续存在的假设下预测未来赤字的。国会预算办公室也会根据政府每年的预算做出预测。虽然没有基于对未来可能发生的立法变化的共识判断的预测,但国会预算办公室的长期预算展望(2010年6月)包含了一个“替代财政方案”,国会预算办公室的工作人员认为这是未来预算政策和由此产生的赤字最有可能的前景。将这些有根据的判断性预测与国会预算办公室的基线数据进行比较,看看后者可能有多大的误导性,这将是一件有趣的事情。的数据
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信