In response to those who claim that people will “hoard rebates or cash”, Bryan Caplan writes:
Why are [people] saving in the first place? Once again, there are two theories:
Theory #1: People just don’t have anything they want to buy. They’re satiated, so no matter how much extra income they get, they’ll just sit on it.
Theory #2: People want a buffer. They aren’t comfortable with their current asset cushion, so they’re saving in order to return to their comfort zone.
Theory #1 is wholely implausible. There’s tons of stuff that people still covet. The truth, then, lies in Theory #2: People will start spending again once they feel like they’ve got enough breathing room.
If theory #2 is the truth, then there is no situation in which “helicopter drops” could fail to boost demand, save for a puzzling situation where we run out of gasoline, or paper and ink…but then again, just put some zeros behind peoples’ bank account balances. That doesn’t even require a helicopter!
And if it doesn’t work the second time, take another flight. And another. At some point, people will no longer demand excess cash balances, and will begin spending like crazy. If the Fed credibly commits to permanently increasing the monetary base in this way, it would certainly change NGDP expectations.
P.S. This logic only works for “helicopter drops”, with dubious effectiveness for tax rebates (you can’t credibly commit to cutting taxes forever, after all). Also: no, I don’t think this is an optimal solution to recessions.

5 comments
Comments feed for this article
Thursday ~ July 29th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
jazzbumpa
Are people actually saving? Or does paying down debt just look like saving in some great generalized cosmic ledger?
Theory #2 has lots of merit, and lots of empirical confirmation. But, per Krugman’s blog today, increasing the money supply base is ineffective in a liquidity trap.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/deflation-risks/
Which is kinda why you need a real stimulus package, appropriately sized to the task, and not ineffective tax cuts.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/how-did-we-know-the-stimulus-was-too-small/
Cheers!
JzB
Friday ~ July 30th, 2010 at 12:04 am
Ken Bernsohn
What about other possibilities: #3, that individuals may have a variety of personal reasons: “I have to save to my daughter’s wedding in six months,” “I have an obscure disease and treatment is expensive”, “Scrooge McDuck is my hero, I want to fill a swimming pool with money,” or whatever. If you don’t like that, try #4 “I’m saving for something more interesting to me than more silicon chips and plastic. This could be a first edition of H.P. Lovecraft, a trip to Corto Maltese or Costa Maria, slow horses or fast women. I’m sure there are many other possibilities.
Friday ~ July 30th, 2010 at 10:53 am
Apex
Those are always there and there is no reason to think those should have magically increased during the credit crisis. Something changed that had a significant impact on end user demand. Do we suppose there was normalized increase spread out across the entire population in these variety of personal reasons that caused a large and measurable decrease in end user demand? There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of that nor any reason one would suspect such a thing would happen.
Friday ~ July 30th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Jim
The trouble is that the feedback loop would prevent people from feeling secure, because in times of great uncertainty (and massive loss of household wealth, at least on paper, from housing prices), the “helicoptered” cash would likely be too small to do much good, even at double or triple the size of the original stimulus. Once you start getting to really substantial numbers, you create anxiety about the ability of the gov’t to continue to borrow, which creates more uncertainty, requiring a larger payout, which keeps people from ever reaching that comfort zone.
Wednesday ~ August 4th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
EdMigPer
Can I fly the chopper? I’d drop gold bars on people’s heads.