Article content continued

So much for consumption and investment. That leaves the trade balance: exports minus imports. Could the government engineer an increase there?

Exports are no help. Yes, Ottawa could subsidize them (and irk our trading partners). But that just substitutes government spending for what foreign importers would otherwise have paid. No boost to GDP from that.

We can only get near the hoped-for stimulus if the government spends it all, spends it wastefully, and spends it domestically

And as noted already, imports, however vital to our wellbeing, don’t help the math: they subtract from GDP. Since part of any increase in spending, whether consumed or invested, by households or governments, inevitably goes to imports, they make the 0.4 percent skinnier yet.

One lesson from the simple math, then, is that we can only get near that hoped-for quick 0.4 percent-of-GDP stimulus if the government spends it all, and largely wastefully, and if it is domestically produced goods and services that are being wasted.

The simple math, moreover, misses things. Thinking further about exports and imports, for example, it matters that going into deficit means issuing more federal debt. Unless Canadians suddenly raise their saving enough to buy all of it — which would erase any intended stimulus — foreigners will have to buy some. For that, they will need more Canadian dollars. The increased demand for Canadian dollars will push up the exchange rate. Result: fewer exports and more imports — shrinking that hoped-for 0.4 percent yet further.

At this point, stimulus advocates will object that the simple math misses positive things as well. What about the spin-off effects? Wouldn’t new government spending inspire greater consumer and business confidence, in turn triggering more private spending? What about the famous multiplier?