Fiskalpolitik in Zeiten der Pandemie: Staatsschulden als Kernelement einer sinnvollen staatlichen Risiko- bzw. Krisenpolitik

Zusammenfassung Die als Folge der Corona-Pandemie steigende Staatsverschuldung wird zunehmend kritisch gesehen, weil sie angeblich zukünftige Generationen mit Schulden belaste. Saldenmechanische Zusammenhänge zeigen, dass dies nicht richtig ist: zukünftige Generationen erben einen Verteilungskonflikt zwischen zukünftigen Steuerzahlern und zukünftigen Haltern der Staatsschuldtitel, aber keine Netto-Schulden. Da eine Reihe von Überlegungen dafür spricht, dass die Staatsverschuldung selbst dazu beiträgt, die Angebotsseite der Volkswirtschaft zu stärken, ist zu erwarten, dass zukünftige Generationen diesen Verteilungskonflikt lösen werden, ohne auf Staatskonkurs oder (Hyper-)Inflation zurückzugreifen. Insgesamt ist die Ausweitung der Staatsverschuldung daher ein wichtiges Element einer angemessenen Risiko- und Krisenpolitik in der Pandemie. Abstract: Fiscal Policy in Times of Pandemic: National Debt as a Core Element of a Sensible Government Risk and Crisis Policy The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a strong rise in government deficits. Critics argue that the policy approach burdens future generations with debt. However, simple balance sheet mechanics show that this is not the case. Future generations inherit a distributional conflict on future resources between future taxpayers and future holders of claims on governments, but no net debt. Moreover, several arguments suggest that expansionary fiscal policies support investment and hence raise the stock of real capital future generations can make use of. Overall, we conclude that the expansion of government debt has been the correct policy approach for dealing with the pandemic.

Conclusion

This concluding chapter provides arguments based on mounting research evidence showing that, for many, learning is not earning. It also rests on the contention that historical possibilities exist to improve the quality of individual and social life through the transformation of economic means—in other words, by developing a new way of thinking about human capital. The chapter goes on to confront future prospects for the new human capital, even as these prospects depend on rebalancing the power relations between capital and labor. To conclude, the chapter calls for a different narrative that connects with the disconnections in people’s lives—their sense of disappointment, alienation, and unfairness. However, the distributional conflict revealed at the very heart of capitalism, which is central to the crisis of human capital, remains to be resolved.

Winners and loser of trade liberalization: frictions, rigidities and reforms

Trade liberalization brings economic gains to the economy due to efficiency improvements and lower prices. The gains, however, may not be for everybody: export sectors win and import sectors lose. This creates a distributional conflict. The gains and losses from trade, and the attendant conflict, evolve as the economy adjusts. This depends on capital and labor market rigidities. There is room for policies to help realize and enhance the gains from trade and to mitigate the losses.