« Back to Results

COVID-19 and Economic Policy

Paper Session

Monday, Jan. 4, 2021 3:45 PM - 5:45 PM (EST)

Hosted By: Association for Evolutionary Economics
  • Chair: Alicia Giron, National Autonomous University of Mexico

Consumer Debt and COVID-19: A Viral Death Sentence

Steven Pressman
,
Colorado State University
Robert Scott
,
Monmoth University

Abstract

Even before the coronavirus pandemic, consumer debt stood at record levels. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, at the end of 2019, consumer debt (which excludes mortgages) exceeded $4 trillion, or $12,700 per person (around 10% of median income take-home pay). Things are surely much worse now. Even with a massive outpouring of government benefits (including expanded unemployment insurance and $1,200 checks), the coronavirus Depression has led to a sharp income drop for many households. In addition, many households have resorted to borrowing in order to pay for necessities while others have delayed paying their rent and utilities, further increasing their debt burden. All this indebtedness restrains consumer spending, which is the main factor that drives economic growth because of the large role played by consumption in GDP. Because of the overwhelming importance of consumption in GDP, reducing household debt would enable consumers to spend more, leading to a more robust economic recovery. This paper seeks to do three things—all related to the issue of consumer debt and its impact on the macroeconomy in the post-coronavirus world. First, it documents the rise in US household debt as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Second, it addresses the question of whether there are any limits to household debt. Is there a point at which debt levels relative to disposable income are too high? Is there a point at which consumers cannot function due to high debt levels and the inability to borrow more money in order to pay back past debt and also pay for current necessities? Third, we set forth a few policies to reduce consumer debt and assure a vigorous recovery.

The Policy Response to COVID-19: The Implementation of Modern Monetary Theory

John P. Watkins
,
Westminster College

Abstract

Covid-19 reveals both the weakness of markets and their nature. Markets are not alert to external threats, foreign, domestic, or microbial. This is government’s role, a role that government has largely failed. Markets are more than the exchange of goods and services and the land, labor, and capital necessary to make those goods and services. The institutional foundation of the market economy lies in the promises that we make to each other, formalized in contracts. Covid 19 has disrupted those promises. The current situation, however, differs from anything preceding it. Stopping the virus’ spread requires social distancing, disrupting markets. Lack of work means a lack of income. Lack of income means unfulfilled promises, raising the specter of a debt-deflation depression. Both the Paycheck Protection Program and the The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act represent efforts to provide people money to meet their promises and sustain themselves. Financing these programs stems from issuing US government securities purchased by the Fed. Because these programs are targeted at helping people and businesses, they represent an application of modern monetary theory. This raises two questions. First, are the programs sufficient? And second, will policy makers resort to a deficit hawkish view and attempt to reduce the government debt?

The Trump Recession Lays Bare the Weaknesses of the United States Economy

John Komlos
,
University of Munich (Emeritus)

Abstract

The pandemic of 2020 is a large-impact improbable event. Such unforeseeable occurrences are often referred to using the metaphor of a “black swan” (Taleb, 2007). Yet, such black swans have been occurring frequently, even if unpredictably. The Dot-Com bubble, 9/11, the Meltdown of 2008, and now the coronavirus pandemic means that in the last two decades we have had four of them at the national level. In other words, they occur with sufficient regularity that we should take such threats seriously and construct a black-swan robust economy and society so that we are less vulnerable to their impact (Taleb, 2009).
The Trump recession, following on the heels of the pandemic, reveals the fragility of the neoliberal economic system as well as the inconsistency of its ideology of rugged individualism. The markets work until they don’t and need government bailouts by the trillions. This system is “socialism for the rich” and capitalism for the rest of us (Stiglitz, 2009). How long can bailout capitalism work? How long can a system last that is being propped up with trillions of dollars of money creation by the Federal Reserve (Figure 1)? Just between March 11 and March 25 the Fred pumped no less than $1 trillion into the financial system out of thin air. It is time for a paradigm switch from the economics of hypercapitalism to Capitalism with a Human Face (Komlos, 2019). The first step in doing so would be to examine our vulnerabilities in dealing with an uncertain world and to acknowledge that other catastrophic events are lurking around the corner. These include global environmental degradation, hostile artificial intelligence, and the rising U.S. national debt, not to speak of the possibility of untoward acts of adversaries around the globe. T

Theories, Policies, and COVID 19

Paolo Ramazzotti
,
University of Macerata

Abstract

In many European countries, the Covid crisis pointed to a range of policy issues previously neglected by policymakers. Despite the dominance of neoliberalism, at the domestic level, some governments acknowledged the need for subsidies to households. At the Euro area level, a range of countries argued against the rules that had determined the previous Greek tragedy.
Before the Covid crisis, non-neoliberal policies were contrasted for two reasons. First, they were deemed incompatible with the proper functioning of a market economy. Second, even those who favored them acknowledged that the political balance of power prevented them.
The dramatic consequences of the crisis shifted political consensus, at least as far as emergency measures were involved. Basically everybody agreed that more public expenditure was in order. This did not change mainstream theories but it suggested that issue was not whether but how to finance the extra expenditure. The search for a solution – ranging from direct financing by the central bank to relaxed conditions on credit – had to take account of a trade-off between efficiency and emergency-driven social needs. Similar considerations applied to the selection of the economic activities that were obliged to stop with the lockdown and those that were supposed to guarantee the provisioning of basic goods.
These circumstances lead to a few methodological and theoretical considerations. First, economic theory may spread over a great variety of issues, which may or may not be strictly related to policy measures. It can rely on a variety of accounting metrics. This is fine, since academic debates should be open to all sorts of issues and perspectives. Economic policy, in turn, has to do with how the economy should affect people’s lives. It should rely on a social accounting that somehow assesses the quality of life. T

Will COVID19 Worsen the Wealth Gap in the United States?

Kalpana Khanal
,
Nichols College
Sophia Prouty
,
Nichols College
Thomas Stedman
,
Nichols College

Abstract

"In January of 2020, the first coronavirus case was reported in the United States. Since then the number in the United States has skyrocketed, rampaging through densely populated cities such as New York, Chicago, and many others. This virus has infected over a million people and already killed tens of thousands in the United States alone. The disease seems to affect lower-income workers, black and minorities differently than rest of the population.
The virus may have brought some systemic issues to the surface that needs to be explored in detail from original institutional perspective. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the structural disadvantages that may make low-income workers and specifically black and other minority population more prone to contracting the virus. Some of these issues may include lack of job security, unequal access to health care and higher education, among others. This paper aims to highlight these systemic issues in light of the coronavirus pandemic and try to offer policy proposals."
JEL Classifications
  • B5 - Current Heterodox Approaches
  • I1 - Health