Jeffrey Miron argues that we should use cost-benefit analysis to evaluate government expenditure:
…even if transfers help stimulate consumer spending, their net effect on the economy is unclear. This implies that whether the sequester will harm or help the economy depends on whether cost-benefit considerations can justify the existing level of government expenditure. And on this question, the answer is clear. Across all categories, federal expenditure is far greater than necessary to achieve the legitimate goals of government intervention.
Read more at The Sequester Will Be Good for the Economy | Cato Institute.
Colin Twiggs is a former investment banker with almost 40 years of experience in financial markets. He co-founded Incredible Charts and writes the popular Trading Diary and Patient Investor newsletters.
Using a top-down approach, Colin identifies key macro trends in the global economy before evaluating selected opportunities using a combination of fundamental and technical analysis.
Focusing on interest rates and financial market liquidity as primary drivers of the economic cycle, he warned of the 2008/2009 and 2020 bear markets well ahead of actual events.
He founded PVT Capital (AFSL No. 546090) in May 2023, which offers investment strategy and advice to wholesale clients.
The Grand Sequester (Bargain) is interesting for approximating what old timers will recall as “zero based budgeting”, i.e. forcing every budget area to justify it’s allocation. Of course, nobody every really did it from the zero bound. But across the board cuts will create a basis for incremental bipartisan micro-deals, forcing budget areas to justify failures to make do, and letting Congress and the administration trade off small incremental spending / revenue increases over the lifespan of the Grand Sequester. GOP will trade Defence programs for social programs or taxes as the affected wheels squeak loud enough. When the Grand Sequester begins to bite, the dealmaking begin, too.