A better program would have pushed much more money out in the first three months - say as much as $500 billion - to create the largest possible impact on U.S. GDP.
Economists call this the 'bigger bang for the buck' theory: a one shot, $500 billion stimulus jolt moves the GDP needle more than a $200 billion / $200 billion / $100 billion disbursement, all other factors being equal.
Credit markets: circulation system of commerce
Still, critics of 'Stim 1' should not forget one fact (among others): working against the stimulus has been the financial crisis. How so? Because credit availability can increase/decrease a stimulus package's multiplier effect. Here's why:
A state or jurisdiction may get $20 million to help build a new, larger mass transit center in a city, but if the city can't float bonds to borrow the additional $80 million needed for the project, the stimulus money could lay fallow, or be used for other projects that don't require bond funds. Net impact: some jobs created in a $20 million expenditure, but most likely fewer jobs than a $100 million project.
The above underscores the need for policy makers to work to normalize credit markets as soon as possible. Without loans, Stim 1 won't stimulate or generate as nearly as much commerce as it would under typical market conditions.
Will Rich Ross really have a positive impact on Disney's movie operations?
Consumers sick of recession, may spend extra on holidays
Corrections, seasonality and Santa Claus
