Josh Bivens With Another Reminder About the Stupidity of Austerity

By Josh Bivens

[...] there are multiplier effects, so if actual federal government spending was $118 billion higher today (that’s the gap between actual and “should be” spending identified), then overall GDP would be roughly $180 billion higher. So, the policy decision to pursue austerity is costlier (in GDP terms) than just the difference between government spending levels [...] Government transfers—Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare—are not classified as government consumption and investment spending in the GDP accounts. Instead, they show up as increased consumption spending [...] Most of the political argument has centered on the recovery phase of this cycle, simply because the actual recession began before the Obama administration took office. Further, it’s really only been since 2011 that government spending has been a truly significant drag on growth. Before then, between the Recovery Act and what we have called “ad hoc stimulus measures” (like the payroll tax cut in 2010), we didn’t have real austerity until the fallout from 2011’s Budget Control Act (passed in the wake of Republican debt ceiling brinksmanship in summer 2011) began.

Read rest here.

Mark Blyth's book Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea is highly recommended.

Employment is finally reaching the pre-crisis level

The level of employment is finally after 5 years or so close to the pre-crisis levels. Note that unemployment is considerably down, from around 10 in mid-2009 to 6.3 last May according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The growth in employment has more or less kept pace with the growth of population, while the size of the labor force has been almost stagnant, as seen below.

In other words, what has been growing is the number of workers not in the labor force, which are not counted as unemployed. In other words, not a very good picture.

Gerald Friedman - Whose Recovery?

By Gerald Friedman

There is a story that when the late union leader Walter Reuther was given a tour of a GM plant, a manager introduced him to a set of the company’s new robots.  The manager challenged Reuther to say how he would organize the robots into the UAW.  The union leader supposedly responded by asking: how will General Motors sell cars to the robots?  While American unions have failed to organize the workers in the new economy’s factories, its capitalists seem to have figured out a good answer to Reuther’s question. We shouldn’t be surprised that conservative politicians and orthodox economists are calling for the Federal Reserve to end its program of monetary ease and for the Federal government to end its program of extended unemployment insurance.  Believing in Say’s Law and the virtues of unregulated markets, they have never been comfortable with state action to help the unemployed; instead, they have long argued that the only proper role for government is to protect price stability and the integrity of banking system. What should surprise us is that so few in the business community are pushing back against these ideologues in support of policies to bolster economic growth and employment.  Robert Reich asks whether capitalists and managers have forgotten the basic Fordist compromise, in which businesses rely on affluent workers to consume their products? If a rising tide lifts all boats, don’t capitalists benefit when unemployment falls and workers have more to spend?  And shouldn’t they support policies that bring the tide in?

See rest here

Austerity Explains Extremely Weak Recovery From Great Recession

Recovering from the Great Recession has been accompanied by the slowest growth of public spending following lower troughs of the business cycle since World War II. Read more here.

The Hidden Benefits of Food Stamps

From Mother Jones

Although the Republican-controlled House cuts are unlikely, given a promised veto from President Obama, food stamps will still be slashed by $5 billion on Nov. 1, when the 2009 Recovery Act that increased the aid along with other stimulus spending expires. The 13.6 percent temporary boost in food stamp dollars helped more than half a million Americans escape food insecurity, and millions more to climb out of poverty—4.7 million in 2011 alone, according the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).The Nov. 1 reduction means $36 less per month for a family of four and $11 less for a single person.

See rest here

Austerity, Not Uncertainty, Is the Scary Part of Fiscal Shutdowns

There is a general consensus that annual fiscal policy fights hurt the economy’s recovery. Many people, however, get the story quite wrong. It has nothing to do with 'uncertainty'; rather, it's the unfortunate fact that the brouhaha, in the final instance, leads to smaller budget deficits, i.e. 'austerity', significantly diminishing the level of effective demand.

It’s austerity that is reliably damaging to recover efforts, not uncertainty. And each year’s fiscal drama has tended to produce another dose of austerity. The very large reduction in the budget deficit between 2009 and 2012, combined with the extraordinarily slow pace of recovery over this same time period is not a coincidence. This should be a lesson to evidence-based policymakers: You should be much more worried about accepting more austerity as the price of ending the fiscal drama than any damage caused by the drama itself.

See rest here .

Recovery in the US and Europe

Yep, the recovery has not been great in the US, with employment levels still below the previous peak. But compared to Europe (see graph below; source here).

The Euro Area is 3% below the previous peak, while the US is slightly more than 4% above. The magnitude of the collapse in Europe is incredible. Note that Germany, the successful European story, is far from good.

US economy continues to slowdown

The BEA announced that economic growth in the second quarter was 1.7% and only 1.1% in the first (revised down from 1.8%). Note the significant contraction of the government numbers, according to the Report:

Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 1.5 percent in the second quarter, compared with a decrease of 8.4 percent in the first. National defense decreased 0.5 percent, compared with a decrease of 11.2 percent. Nondefense decreased 3.2 percent, compared with a decrease of 3.6 percent. Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross investment increased 0.3 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 1.3 percent.

Yes austerity does work, and it produces slower growth, and it will by Okun's Law produce higher unemployment rates. This are well established empirical regularities.

Government employment

If you had any doubts, with the exception of the Census in 2010, government employment has gone down significantly since the 2007-8 recession, as shown below.

The most obvious solution is to revive employment programs, like those of the New Deal, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) headed by Harry Hopkins, and the Public Works Administration (PWA) led by Harold Ickes. But in all fairness chances of that happening are slim to none.

Jeff Frankel also thinks government is dragging down the economy

He is very clear in this interview that sequestration is one of the causes of the slowdown to 1.8% in the first quarter. Menzie Chinn also looks at the forecasts, which indicate 0.6% growth in the second quarter, and argues that this is: "no time for either contractionary fiscal or monetary policy."

Government is responsible for weak recovery

Argument in one graph. The figure below shows that private consumption (red line) fell, and then started growing, while government spending (blue line) was important for the early part of the recovery and then has become a drag on the economy.

Hard to see how we are going to get out of the hole with public policy being so incredibly misguided.

Not so fast, the premature recovery problem

There is a certain brouhaha about the speed of the recovery. John Taylor says financial crises do not lead to slow recoveries (also Michael Bordo here). On the other hand, Krugman (and also Reinhart and Rogoff here) say that slow recoveries from financial crises are the norm. At stake, obviously, whether Romney is right and Obama is at fault for the slow recovery. Don't get me wrong, I would tend to agree that recoveries are relatively slow after a financial crisis, since deleveraging is a slow process.

Yet, that is not the main issue about this debate. The point is that ALL involved agree that the system has a natural (automatic) tendency to move back to the trend. Bordo refers nicely to Friedman's 'plucking' model. He reminds us, how it works:

"Friedman imagined the U.S. economy as a string attached to an upward sloping board, with the board representing the underlying long-run growth rate. A recession, in this view, was a downward pluck on the string; the recovery was when the string snapped back. The greater the pluck, the faster the bounce back to trend."

So the deeper the recession was, the faster would the recovery be. In other words, for the GOP economists (Taylor in this case) Obama is aborting holding back the economy and precluding what should be a premature or fast recovery. However, the point the critics make is that debt deleveraging makes the recovery slow, but it is more or less automatic anyway. Government is necessary to speed up something that markets, if they weren't imperfect, would do.

Krugman ideas are based on a recent paper on what he called the Fisher-Minsky-Koo model. Steve Keen has provided a full critique of a previous version here (h/t Lord Keynes who also provides an invaluable bibliography on debt deflations here). The essential point that generates an imperfection in the case of Krugman's model is that an external shock (a Wile E. Coyote moment in his terms, since agents finally notice the floor is gone) brings down the natural rate of interest, which becomes negative for a while (see my discussion on Krugman and the natural rate here). In that case, monetary stimulus is not capable of getting the economy naturally back on track, since the interest rate cannot fall below zero, and as a result agents cannot increase consumption enough to bring full employment automatically.

Hence, in the New Keynesian model of debt-deflation the change from more conventional neoclassical models is that they allow for a sudden (and exogenous) reduction in the debt limit that agents can borrow to reduce the natural rate. It's a financial shock (not a real one) that makes the rate of interest that would equilibrate investment with full employment savings (the inverse of consumption) negative. Agents suddenly understand that they would need a negative interest rate to satisfy their intertemporal consumption plans. From a post-Keynesian (I prefer classical-Keynesian but who cares), the problems are not related at all with the natural rate (yes the capital debates have shown that this makes no sense, where did I read that before?). So deleveraging has a direct effect on the ability of consumers to spend, and there would be no automatic bounce back if the equilibrium rate was not negative.

You may think it is a minor issue, and from a policy point of view it certainly the differences are minor. However, note that the New Keynesian version of the recovery suggests that markets are fundamentally, in the long run, efficient (again against logic and evidence) which is an essential totemic myth that they need to preserve.* And that has policy implications. Recoveries from financial crises are slow, as Krugman says, but not because the natural rate is negative. It is a political problem that involves class conflict. It is because agents that cannot consume out of wages (which have stagnated) cannot borrow themselves out of the crisis, and the federal government, the only one that can, will not do it for political reasons (to keep workers demands in line). That's why heterodox economists are not just for expansionary fiscal policy (and don't think that if the Fed signals more inflation investment confidence will pick up), but argue for higher wages, stronger unions, and debt relief.

* Let alone the funny thing that both sides in this dispute are basically arguing that the economy gravitates around a trend that is exogenous and attracts the actual economy (in a stronger or weaker way), and the way they actually measure the gravitational center (the natural trend) is by averaging the actual rates.

PS: And no, it's not a joke, they do actually sell that T-shirt!