In: Economics
Robert Barro critiqued the Obama Administration for crafting policy based on the assumption that the fiscal multiplier is about 1.5. Barro supposed that “A much more plausible starting point is a multiplier of zero.”5 How do these two different assumptions change the cost-benefit analysis of fiscal stimulus programs? Under what conditions will the Obama Administration be correct in their assumption? Under what conditions will Barro be correct? Who do you think is more correct as it pertains to the US economy today? Why? (Helpful Advice: think outside of the basic models. Craft an economic story.)