Ekonomistas gästskribent Torbjörn Becker hävdar följande:
[I] rådande osäkra klimat kan skattesänkningar istället ge upphov till ytterligare sparande istället för konsumtion.
Han avvisar därför skattesänkningar som stimulansåtgärd. Jag har tidigare påpekat ett detta avvisande är tveksamt enligt empirisk forskning. Professorn i nationalekonomi vid Harvard University Greg Mankiw klargör att det även är tveksamt på teoretisk grund:
Essentially, what Gross says is that (1) people now face a lot of uncertainty, (2) therefore they are inclined to save rather than spend, and (3) therefore any tax cuts they might receive would have only a small effect on their spending. On its face, that argument sounds reasonable. But there is a subtle logical leap that, I believe, does not bear up until closer scrutiny. … Essentially, what the precautionary-saving literature says is that more uncertainty reduces the average propensity to consume (APC), the ratio of consumption to income. But statement (3) does not concern the average propensity to consume. It is about the marginal propensity to consume (MPC), which is the extra consumption generated by a dollar of extra income. Gross implicitly assumes that when uncertainty reduces the APC, it also reduces the MPC. The precautionary-saving literature, however, suggests otherwise. … But if consumption is depressed more at lower levels of cash than at higher levels, then it follows, as a sheer mathematical matter, that the marginal propensity to consume from an extra dollar of cash has gone up. In other words, uncertainty lowers the APC but raises the MPC. People save more in response to uncertainty, but their spending becomes more sensitive to current cash flow.
Det var lite att bita i, det.