Showing posts with label deficit economic theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label deficit economic theory. Show all posts

Friday, September 28, 2012

Interest Rates Are Prices - Ron Paul


One of the most enduring myths in the United States is that this country has a free market, when in reality, the market is merely the structural shell of formerly free institutions. Government pulls the strings behind the scenes. No better illustration of this can be found than in the Federal Reserve's manipulation of interest rates.

The Fed has interfered with the proper function of interest rates for decades, but perhaps never as boldly as it has in the past few years through its policies of quantitative easing. In Chairman Bernanke's most recent press conference he stated that the Fed wishes not only to drive down rates on Treasury debt, but also rates on mortgages, corporate bonds, and other important interest rates. Markets greeted this statement enthusiastically, as this means trillions more newly-created dollars flowing directly to Wall Street.

Because the interest rate is the price of money, manipulation of interest rates has the same effect in the market for loanable funds as price controls have in markets for goods and services. Since demand for funds has increased, but the supply is not being increased, the only way to match the shortfall is to continue to create new credit. But this process cannot continue indefinitely. At some point the capital projects funded by the new credit are completed. Houses must be sold, mines must begin to produce ore, factories must begin to operate and produce consumer goods.

But because consumption patterns have either remained unchanged or have become more present-oriented, by the time these new capital projects are finished and begin to produce, the producers find no market for their goods. Because the coordination between savings and consumption was severed through the artificial lowering of the interest rate, both savers and borrowers have been signaled into unsustainable patterns of economic activity. 

Resources that would have been used in productive endeavors under a regime of market-determined interest rates are instead shuttled into endeavors that only after the fact are determined to be unprofitable. In order to return to a functioning economy, those resources which have been malinvested need to be liquidated and shifted into sectors in which they can be put to productive use.

Another effect of the injections of credit into the system is that prices rise. More money chasing the same amount of goods results in a rise in prices. Wall Street and the banking system gain the use of the new credit before prices rise. Main Street, however, sees the prices rise before they are able to take advantage of the newly-created credit. The purchasing power of the dollar is eroded and the standard of living of the American people drops.

We live today not in a free market economic system but in a "mixed economy", marked by an uneasy mixture of corporatism; vestiges of free market capitalism; and outright central planning in some sectors. Each infusion of credit by the Fed distorts the structure of the economy, damages the important role that interest rates play in the market, and erodes the purchasing power of the dollar. Fed policymakers view themselves as wise gurus managing the economy, yet every action they take results in economic distortion and devastation.

Unless Congress gets serious about reining in the Federal Reserve and putting an end to its manipulation, the economic distortions the Fed has caused will not be liquidated; they will become more entrenched, keeping true economic recovery out of our grasp and sowing the seeds for future crisis.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Bernanke: Far too Early to Call Victory in Recovery


Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said on Tuesday it is too soon to declare victory in the U.S. economic recovery, warning against complacency in policy making as the outlook brightens.
"We haven't quite yet got to the point where we can be completely confident that we're on a track to full recovery," Bernanke told ABC News in a rare on-the-record interview.

The Fed chairman welcomed a decline in the unemployment rate and signs financial strains in debt-stricken Europe were easing. But he said joblessness was still at a troubling high and housing markets still weak.
"I think it's really important not to be complacent. We have a long way to go, a lot of work to do, and we're going to keep doing that."

Asked whether the Fed was considering further action to stimulate growth, Bernanke said the central bank would take no options off the table. However, he did not suggest a further round of bond buying was imminent.

The Fed has kept interest rates near zero since December 2008 and has bought $2.3 trillion of debt through two bond-purchasing programs to stimulate growth.
In a speech on Monday, Bernanke said the U.S. economy would need to grow more quickly to ensure continued progress in reducing the jobless rate. Those comments drove stock prices higher as investors bet a further round of monetary stimulus might be planned.

Stocks rose Monday on optimism Bernanke's remarks signaled the Fed will do more to lower borrowing costs. Traders pushed out bets for a first Fed rate hike to October 2013, from July 2013 just a week earlier.
The U.S. unemployment rate has dropped from 9.1 percent in August to 8.3 percent last month, a decline Fed officials see as out of step with a still-sluggish pace of growth.

Dallas Federal Reserve Bank President Richard Fisher, a monetary policy hawk, on Tuesday agreed that faster growth is needed to boost jobs, although he made clear he is opposed to a further easing of monetary policy.

Eric Rosengren, a policy dove who leads the Boston Fed, said the central bank should ease further if growth slows more than expected. Neither official has a vote this year on the Fed's policy panel.
Another official who is supportive of loose monetary policies, New York Fed President William Dudley, told a congressional panel financial strains in Europe have eased although the Fed continues to monitor the situation carefully.

After its last two meetings, the Fed said it would likely keep overnight borrowing costs near zero at least through late 2014. Bernanke said that was the central bank's best estimate, not a guarantee.

A quickened pace of job creation - the economy has created more than 200,000 jobs in each of the last three months - has fueled speculation the central bank might raise rates sooner.
In both his speech on Monday and the interview on Tuesday, Bernanke appeared to be pushing back against those expectations.

"It's far too early to declare victory," Bernanke told ABC News. "We need to be cautious and make sure this is sustainable."

One drag on growth is likely to come from gasoline prices that have drifted higher on geopolitical worries, Bernanke said.

"That will be a hit on growth," he said. "But at this level ... we don't think it's going to be anything that's going to stall the recovery."

Rising fuel costs are shaping up as one of the biggest issues in the 2012 presidential campaign, as U.S. gasoline prices have jumped about $0.30 per gallon to just over $3.90 within the past month.
Bernanke's ABC News appearance marks the third time the Fed chairman has given an extensive on-the-record, on-camera interview. It was part of a barrage of recent public exposure that has included a profile in a national magazine and a series of college lectures on the Fed and the recent financial crisis.

Bernanke's stepped-up visibility, on top of the launch of news conferences four times a year, appears aimed at counter-balancing some of the harsh criticism leveled at the Fed by Republican presidential candidates. Critics say the Fed's policies have weakened the dollar, hurt savers, and are likely to generate inflation.


View Source

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Major Setback for Economic Integration Plan


Europe's efforts to seal a new pact to deepen economic integration was dealt a setback even before it comes to life after Standard & Poor's (S&P) warned that the treaty may lead to self-defeating austerity.

European Union leaders agreed after a tense summit earlier to write a new pact to toughen budget discipline across the bloc, with Germany leading the charge for stricter policing of spending after years of toothless oversight.

The aim of the pact is to convince the markets that the euro zone can prevent a new crisis like the one that has forced Greece, Ireland and Portugal to take bailouts and is driving Italy and Spain to the edge.

But after downgrading the credit score of nine of the euro zone's 17 states on Friday, including stripping France and Austria of their triple-A ratings, S&P voiced doubt about the effectiveness of the pact.

The new treaty, which EU leaders hope to sign by March, "has not produced a breakthrough of sufficient size and scope to fully address the euro zone's financial problems," it said.

The pact is based "on only a partial recognition of the source of the crisis: that the current financial turmoil stems primarily from fiscal profligacy at the periphery of the euro zone," the agency said.

To S&P, the euro zone's problems "are as much a consequence of rising external imbalances and divergences in competitiveness between the euro zone's core and the so-called 'periphery'".

Negotiators this week reached an agreement in principle on the "fiscal compact," which demands that governments write into their constitutions a law requiring balanced budgets.

The pact would make sanctions against governments that violate budget rules more automatic, after most countries ignored for years EU rules limiting public deficits to three per cent of gross domestic product.

But S&P warned that "a reform process based on a pillar of fiscal austerity alone risks becoming self-defeating, as domestic demand falls in line with consumers' rising concerns about job security and disposable incomes, eroding national tax revenues."

Monday, November 21, 2011

Gold/Silver Stake for Zombie Terrorist Bankers : Max Keiser


Italy's new prime minister, Mario Monti, has began work on forming a new 'technocrat' government to tackle the country's towering debt. An economist and former EU-commissioner, he now has to implement structural economic reforms to pull Italy out of its financial chaos. For more on this, RT talks to Max Keiser, financial analyst and host of the Keiser Report.

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Dramatic shift in European view a 'big game changer'



THE GOVERNMENT has met all economic, banking and structural targets for the first six months of the year that were required as part of the international rescue package for Ireland, Minister for Finance Michael Noonan said.

The “troika” of the three international bodies – EU Commission, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund – had yesterday morning completed their quarterly review of Ireland’s performance, he said, and concluded that the country had met all its obligations under the Memorandum of Understanding.

“We have met the fiscal targets. We have met the banking targets. We have met the structural reform targets. I am also pleased that the external partners have concluded that the Irish programme is on track, and we are making good progress.”

Mr Noonan said that notwithstanding the decision by ratings agency Moody’s to downgrade Ireland’s investment grade to junk status, the country was still aiming to fully return to the markets by 2013 in accordance with the rescue programme timetable.

He qualified this by pointing to the huge uncertainties that have beset economies and banking globally over the past two years.

“Looking forward for two years to July [2013], it’s an eternity to be looking forward, given all that has happened,” he said.

Mr Noonan was at a news conference where he and Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform Brendan Howlin gave their response to the conclusion of the review carried out by officials from the troika. Both Ministers held their final meeting with senior troika officials yesterday.

Mr Noonan emphasised European governments’ view of the extent of the issue had changed dramatically in the past week.

Portraying it as a “big game changer”, he said: “For the first time since I became a Minister, everybody around the table at Ecofin [the meeting of EU finance ministers] is seeing the problem as a European problem and a euro problem, rather than, or in addition to, the problem in individual countries.

“If there’s a heads of government meeting next week, the focus will be on that problem,” he said.

The adjustment necessary in December’s budget may be more than the €3.6 billion stipulated in the memorandum, Mr Noonan confirmed. He said it was too early to say with any certainty how much more, as there were too many variables to allow the making of an accurate assessment.

“The Government’s position is we are working towards a correction target of €3.6 billion. We regard that as a minimum. We may have to go slightly above that in a correction,” he said.

He made implicit criticism of Moody’s for the timing of its ratings downgrade for Ireland.

“There were general comments of displeasure across Europe that this decision was taken.

“It’s certainly peculiar that they would have moved to re-rate Ireland within 48 hours of the adjudication of the troika of Ireland’s programme. You’d think it was reasonable to wait until today or tomorrow to see what the troika was saying,” he said.

Moody’s rating was of marginal consequence, he added, as Ireland was currently not in the markets.

Mr Howlin said the Government’s comprehensive review of spending would be in a position in the autumn to offer budgetary choices that might provide alternatives to social welfare rate cuts or increases in income tax.

On reform of wage-setting for sectors including hospitality and security, Mr Howlin said last week’s High Court ruling that joint labour committees had no constitutional basis had fundamentally altered the situation.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

United States Treasuries Snap Decline as Fed Plans to Purchase Notes Today


US Treasuries snapped a decline from yesterday as the Federal Reserve prepared to buy as much as $6 billion of U.S. debt today, after saying it intends to stick to its plan to purchase $600 billion of securities by June 30.

Yields have risen too far given that inflation is running slower than the Federal Reserve wants, according to Nikko Cordial Securities Inc., a unit of Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc., Japan’s third-largest publicly traded bank. The U.S. government is scheduled to sell $29 billion of seven-year debt today, the last of three note auctions this week.

“It will take a few quarters for inflation to pick up,” said Hiroki Shimazu, an economist at Nikko Cordial in Tokyo. “That will make Treasury yields fall in the next few months.”

Ten-year notes yielded 3.41 percent as of 6:51 a.m. in London, according to BGCantor Market Data. The 2.625 percent security maturing in November 2020 traded at 93 1/2. The yield increased eight basis points yesterday.

U.S. government securities have fluctuated between gains and losses for the past eight sessions. The 10-year rate will fall to 3 percent by March 31, Shimazu said.

The Fed will buy $4 billion to $6 billion of notes maturing from July 2012 to July 2013 today, according to its website.

The euro was near a two-month high versus the dollar before a German report forecast to show consumer prices rose at the fastest pace in two years. The 17-nation currency rose to $1.3722 yesterday, the strongest since Nov. 22.

Extra Yield

The extra yield investors demand to hold two-year German notes instead of similar-maturity Treasuries expanded to 70 basis points today, the most since January 2009.

The difference between 2- and 30-year rates was 3.96 percentage points. The spread widened to a record 3.98 percentage points on Jan. 20 based on closing levels, indicating investors have been demanding greater compensation for rising costs in the economy.

Ten-year Treasury Inflation Protected Securities show bondholders expect the consumer price index to increase 2.27 percentage points annually on average over the life of the debt. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg forecast an inflation rate this year of 1.7 percent.

Treasuries fell yesterday as the Fed maintained its bond- purchase program while saying the pace of economic expansion is insufficient to lower unemployment. The jobless rate has been more than 9 percent for 20 months.

Government securities also declined after the U.S. sold $35 billion of five-year notes and a report showed sales of new homes rose more in December than economists forecast.

‘Full Speed Ahead’

While commodities have risen, “longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable, and measures of underlying inflation have been trending downward,” the central bank said in a statement yesterday after its two-day meeting.

The inflation gauge watched by the Fed, which excludes food and energy costs, increased 0.8 percent in the 12 months through November. The figure is below the 1.6 percent to 2 percent range central bank officials say is consistent with achieving their legislative mandate for stable prices.

Treasuries are heading for a fourth monthly decline on signs the economy is improving. U.S. debt has handed investors a 3 percent loss since the end of September, based on Bank of America Merrill Lynch data.

The MSCI All Country World Index of stocks returned 11 percent in the period, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. U.S. corporate bonds fell 0.2 percent, the BOA indexes show.

Durable Goods

Orders for U.S. durable goods and pending home sales both rose in December, economists said before government and industry reports today. At General Electric Co., the world’s biggest maker of jet engines, operating earnings will increase “nicely” this year, Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Immelt said Jan. 21.

The Fed’s purchases of Treasuries and mortgage debt reduce the supply of those securities, according to Fidelity Investments, the Boston-based fund manager that oversees $1.6 trillion of assets.

“The corporate bond market is still reasonably attractive,” David Prothro, a debt fund manager at Fidelity, wrote in a report yesterday on the company’s website. “The U.S. economy is stabilizing.”

The seven-year notes being sold today yielded 2.77 percent in pre-auction trading, compared with 2.83 percent at the previous sale of the securities on Dec. 29.

Investors bid for 2.86 times the amount on offer last month, up from 2.63 times in November. Indirect bidders, the class of investors that includes foreign central banks, bought 64.2 percent of the debt, versus a 10-sale average of 50.9 percent.

--Editors: Nicholas Reynolds, Jonathan Annells

To contact the reporter on this story: Wes Goodman in Singapore at wgoodman@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Rocky Swift at rswift5@bloomberg.net.

Monday, August 2, 2010

The Art of Tax War - Economics Theory


The highly charged partisan debate over the future of the Bush tax cuts (scheduled to expire at the end of December) is a kind of war. Whether you term it a class war depends on what you mean by class, but it is certainly a war between the very rich (the top 2 percent of income earners) and a host of other individuals allied with them, against everybody else who gives a darn.

Battlefield success will be largely determined by the outcomes in the coming Congressional elections. A key issue in these races will be public perceptions of President Obama’s proposal to let expire the federal income-tax cuts put in place by the Bush administration for the very rich, while maintaining those tax cuts – and others implemented by his administration – for everybody else.

Voters’ perceptions are not primarily driven by facts. A February CBS poll showed that only 12 percent of voters recognize that the Obama administration has cut taxes. About 24 percent of voters (and about 64 percent of Tea Party supporters) said they believed it had raised taxes.

Many explanations come to mind. The tax issue is often a lightning rod for other frustrations. Most people find discussions of tax policy complicated and boring, and highly charged partisan debates excite some, but upset others, discouraging them from learning more.

The dynamics of collective conflict also come into play. Precisely because they are such a small group, the very rich stand to lose much more per person than others will gain per person from increased tax revenues. They also have more resources to invest in the fight, enabling them to make bigger contributions to Congressional campaigns.

One important strategic goal of this camp is to persuade voters that tax increases at the top will hurt the economy as a whole. Here’s where supply-side economics comes in, with its claims that tax cuts increase revenues and promote economic growth.

Historical trends, including a comparison of trends during the Clinton and Bush administrations, do not support these claims. But in a world in which most people believe their livelihoods depend on rich investors, many people are fearful. As Brit Hume of Fox News put it on July 25, “When’s the last time one of these poor people offered you a job?”

As a corollary, it is strategically important to argue that increased taxes at the top will hurt small business owners, who are generally more liked and better respected than individuals in the economic stratosphere. But as William Gale of the Urban Institute explains, very few small-business owners are in the top 2 percent, and most individuals in that category don’t heavily rely on business income.

In a counterattack, a group called Business and Investors Against Tax Haven Abuse has released a report arguing that corporate tax havens provide an unfair advantage to large chain retailers and financial companies over locally owned retailers and community banks.

This report doesn’t speak directly to the issue of federal income taxes, but nonetheless lands some relevant blows. Apparently Goldman Sachs, taking brilliant advantage of offshore tax havens in 2008, paid federal taxes at an effective tax rate of 1 percent, proffering a sum less than one-third what it paid its chief executive, Lloyd Blankfein.

It seems unlikely that taxing Mr. Blankfein himself at a higher rate would cause any harm.

Another strategic goal of opponents of the tax increase is to split and weaken the coalition favoring it. In this context, it is advantageous to label those receiving public assistance (including unemployment insurance) as slackers and cheats. About 47 percent of Americans owed no federal income tax in 2009, which you might think people opposed to federal income taxes would consider good news. Instead, the conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh characterized this as a form of fraud, “worse than anything Bernie Madoff ever thought about doing.”

On the battlefield, in the fog of war, it is often difficult to know exactly what is happening, and why. But those resisting change have the most to gain from fog – or even from blowing smoke – because uncertainty often works in favor of the status quo.

In my view, Citizens for Tax Justice, which describes itself as an advocacy group that strives “to give ordinary people a greater voice” against the “armies of special interest lobbyists for corporations and the wealthy,” offers the most specific and well-documented analysis of the two competing approaches to the Bush tax cuts, those of President Obama and the Congressional Republicans. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to have gotten much attention from the news media.

I’m not sure whose fault that is, and if Sun Tzu were alive today, I’m not sure whom he would be working for. But it’s pretty clear that the Republicans would offer him a higher salary.

See orignal source

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Ron Paul - The State of US Coins and Currency 20th July, 2010



Ron Paul questioning US Mint on Planchett's and their lack of supply as an excuse for not minting proof eagles in 2009.

Saturday, July 3, 2010

The current economic contraction longest since 1929 Economics Theory



The current economic contraction began in December 2007 with unemployment at 5.0 percent. Joblessness climbed slowly month after month until it peaked at 10.1 percent in October 2009. Today, according to the June report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment stands at 9.5 percent. Congress, the White House, and the media have hammered away at this near double-digit jobless rate for months in part because President Obama insisted that joblessness would not climb above 8 percent if his stimulus package were approved. Thus, most Americans including those who have not been personally touched by the economic slump are aware that the last time joblessness reached 10 percent was in the early 1980s. However, the public probably does not know that the current contraction very likely is the longest on record since the 43-month contraction in August 1929-March 1933.

The official agency that dates the business cycle in the United States is the Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research. Unlike many others, the Committee does not define a recession as two consecutive quarters of a decline in GDP. Instead it defines a contraction as a significant decline in economic activity across the economy that lasts more than a few months as indicated by real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. It has not yet determined the date of the trough in economic activity that identifies the end of the current contraction.

If the Committee determines that the trough came in May 2009 the current contraction would have lasted 17 months and would become the longest on record since 43-month contraction in August 1929-March 1933. Longer than the 16-month contractions in November 1973-March 1975 and July 1981-November 1982.

Since the jobless rate to date has not fallen below the May 2009 rate of 9.4 percent, Mayo Research Institute expects the Dating Committee to fix the end of the contraction sometime later in 2009, possibly October when joblessness hit 10.1 percent. An October 2009 trough would make for a contraction that lasted 22 months. What sets this contraction apart from the other 12 contractions since 1929-1933 is a combination of a very high unemployment rate and a nearly two-year duration.

Concerns about the size of the federal deficit and the public debt, the still fragile housing and commercial real estate markets, continuing bank failures, cash-laden investors shying away from shaky financial markets, sagging consumer confidence, the weakening of the euro, the future of deepwater drilling, contagion related to the sovereign crisis in Greece that may spill over to Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland, already scheduled higher tax rates starting in 2011, not to mention geopolitical instability in Mideast, make for fears that any economic expansion following the current contraction will be cut short. In other words, we may be headed toward a double-dip recession.

There are two instances of double-dip recessions since the end of World War II: the April 1958 trough that was followed by an expansion phase that lasted only 24 months; the July 1980 trough followed by an even shorter 12-month expansion phase. In sharp contrast the last three expansion phases lasted 92, 120, and 73 months.

With the two double-dip recessions, tax cuts were the prescribed remedy though in the first case President Kennedy’s Keynesian economic advisers justified the cuts in the early 1960s as necessary to strengthen aggregate demand. In the second case President Reagan’s supply-side advisers, having lost confidence in Keynesian economics, argued the need in the early 1980s to bolster aggregate supply.

Is the United States headed toward a double-dip recession? NO, if the necessary market corrections already have taken place and prices across the board have declined sufficiently to clear away surpluses in labor, resource, product, and financial markets. YES, if those surpluses remain in place and further corrections are necessary.

It could be argued that the very duration of the current contraction has provided all the correction needed. But keep in mind that the huge contraction that ended in March 1933 did not provide all of the correction necessary to haul the U.S. economy out of the Great Depression. That 43-month contraction was followed by a 13-month contraction that got underway in May 1937.

Even the best economic analysts see the future as if “through a glass, darkly.” Even so, Mayo Research Institute hazards two forecasts, both based on the historical record. First, whether a double-dip recession is in our immediate future or not, we can say with considerable confidence that the jobless rate will remain high for several more years because economic history demonstrates that labor markets respond slowly to market corrections. To illustrate, it took 14 years for the August 1983 jobless rate of 9.5 percent to drop to 4.9 percent.

Second, whether there is a double-dip recession in our immediate future or not, we can say with even more confidence that there is another contraction further down the road. Leaving aside the war years of the early to mid 1940s, we experienced two contractions in the 1940s, two in the 1950s, one in the 1960s followed by another that began at the very end of the decade and extended into the next, one other in the 1970s, two in the 1980s, one in the 1990s, and two others more recently.

What we don’t know with any measure of certainty is when that contraction will take occur. Mayo Research Institute is inclined to think that next expansion phase will not run as long as the last three which averaged 8 years because all three were driven by the job-creating, entrepreneurial energy of the ICT revolution. Based on the 9 other expansions since the end of World War II, our best guess is that the coming expansion will peak in approximately 4 years. If as we suggested earlier the latest trough is dated sometime around May-October 2009, it follows that the coming expansion phase will top out sometime in 2013.

The historical record establishes clearly that economics has not yet figured out how to prevent a contraction. Further, economics is split on how best to cure a contraction with Keynesians, monetarists, supply-siders, and neoclassicals offering different remedies. At best we are able to alleviate some of its effects through programs like unemployment insurance until the slump ends and expansion sets in. Some argue, however, that by putting off the necessary market corrections alleviative measures such as extending the maximum duration of unemployment insurance benefits from 26 to 99 weeks make the contraction even worse.

View Source

So what exactly is a 'double-dip' recession? Economics Theory



Concerns are rising that the economy is at risk of slipping into a "double-dip" recession.

High unemployment, Europe's debt crisis, a slowdown in China, a teetering housing market and sinking stock prices are all weighing on a fragile U.S. recovery.

So what exactly is a double-dip recession?

Robert Hall has an idea of what one looks like but no precise definition. He's chairman of the National Bureau of Economic Research, a group of academic economists that officially declares the starts and ends of recessions.

In Hall's view, a double dip is akin to a continuous recession that's punctuated by a period of growth, then followed by a further decline in the economy.

The NBER doesn't define a double dip any more specifically than that, says Hall, an economics professor at Stanford University.

In econo-speak, Hall explains: "The idea — hypothetical because it has yet to happen — is that activity might rise for a period, but not far enough to complete a cycle, then fall again, and finally rise above its original level, only then completing the cycle."

Hall says the closest the United States has come to a double dip was in 1980 and 1981. But the NBER concluded that those were two distinct, though closely spaced, recessions — "not a double dip," he says.

Not so, says Sung Won Sohn, professor at California State University, Channel Islands. Sohn says the back-to-back recessions of the early '80s fit his definition of a double dip: A recession followed by a short period of growth followed by a recession.

Brian Bethune, economist at IHS Global Insight, has a view similar to Hall's: A period in which the economy shrinks, starts growing again and then shrinks again — for at least six months.

"There is no mathematical formula; it's a judgment call," Bethune says.

The NBER has declared the economy fell into a recession in December 2007. It hasn't yet pinpointed an end to the recession. It said in April that it would be "premature" to do so.

Many other economists say the recession ended in June or July of last year. The economy returned to growth again in the third quarter of 2009, after four straight quarters of declines. More recently, the economy has added jobs in each of the first five months of this year.

Still, the threats to the recovery from overseas and at home are growing. So are the risks that the recovery will fade out. Economists say the odds of that remain low but have crept up since a couple of months ago. Analysts are downgrading their growth forecasts for the second half of this year.

In determining the starts and stops of recessions, the NBER reviews data that make up the nation's gross domestic product. The GDP measures the value of goods and services produced in the United States. The NBER also reviews incomes, employment and industrial activity.

The panel, based in Cambridge, Mass., tends to take its time in declaring when a recession has started or ended.

It announced in December 2008 that the recession had actually started one year earlier — in December 2007.

And it declared in July 2003 that the 2001 recession was over. It had actually ended 20 months earlier — in November 2001.

In President George W. Bush's eight years in office, the United States fell into two recessions. The first started in March 2001 and ended that November. The second started in December 2007; its end date is pending the NBER's determination.

The timing of the NBER's decision likely means little to ordinary Americans now muddling through a sluggish economic recovery and weak job market.

Many will continue to struggle. Unemployment usually keeps rising well after a recession ends. After the 2001 recession, for instance, unemployment didn't peak until June 2003 — 19 months later.

View Source

Friday, July 2, 2010

How to fix US deficit: Stick to the law


I haven’t had a chance to digest CBO’s long-term outlook yet (released earlier today), but luckily I did see Ezra Klein’s post on it, which featured two charts which highlight the difference between CBO’s current-law baseline, and their “alternative fiscal scenario” which is more of a “policy-extended” baseline–similar to the one the Obama Administration uses as the baseline relative to which they measure the costs (or savings) of their budget proposals.

In theory, CBO’s deficit assumptions project the effects of settled law. And if you do that, revenues pretty much pay for spending over the next few decades.

Note that the chart shows that under CBO’s “extended baseline” scenario, reflecting current law, “primary balance” is achieved, where there is no “fiscal gap” between non-interest spending and revenues. That doesn’t mean the federal budget is perfectly balanced, because interest costs take total federal spending above revenues, but it does mean that the deficit is pretty small–as a matter of fact, less than 3 percent of GDP by 2015, which means it’s economically sustainable (because at 3 percent, the stock of federal debt is growing at about the same pace as the economy).

Coincidentally, this picture above could also be labeled “2015 Goal of President Obama’s Fiscal Commission”–because the commission’s goal is also to achieve “primary balance” and a “sustainable” level of deficits by 2015.

So CBO is showing us we don’t have to do anything to achieve fiscally-responsible policy over the next 25 years. It’s already set by laws we’ve already passed. Congress can go home. They don’t need to pass any deficit-reducing legislation, and President Obama doesn’t have to sign it.

Well, unfortunately life is not so simple. As Ezra warns:

But current law is not likely to advance unmolested. You’ll notice, for instance, that there’s a big jump in current-law revenues next year. That’s because the Bush tax cuts are slated to expire totally. But few expect Congress to allow them to expire totally. They’re likely to preserve the bulk of the cuts, rejecting only some of the cuts that helped out the rich.

Ah, but here’s where the President’s fiscal commission can help us stick to the “simple” solution of holding onto current law. They can make it simpler to hold onto this fiscally-responsible, current-law policy over the longer run by giving their blessing to letting go of current law (only) temporarily–letting Congress and President Obama enact a (popular) tax cut to help the recovering-but-still-weak economy: an only temporary extension of the bulk of the Bush tax cuts. In exchange, the commission could require that the federal government get back on track in a couple years, recommitting to the picture above by getting back to the current-law baseline level of revenues. That doesn’t have to mean sticking to current tax law, but it does mean that any deviations from that “script” will have to be revenue-neutral. And that sounds a lot like an exercise in fundamental tax reform, which could boost the strength and sustainability of our federal revenue system even beyond the next 25 years.

In fact, this was a strategy that Bob Bixby, the Concord Coalition’s executive director (and my boss), recommended to the President’s commission today. From his written testimony:

That leaves us with tax policy. Sticking to the CBO current-law baseline on taxes, 19.7 percent of GDP, gets the budget deficit to the commission’s target. Legislatively, that represents the easiest option, as policymakers simply need to do nothing and let current law play out.

However, that does not mean current law represents the most desirable policy path to achieve the baseline level of revenues. If reverting to the pre-2001 era tax policy (with its higher marginal tax rates) at the beginning of 2011 is deemed undesirable for political reasons, or out of economic concern for raising marginal tax rates during the early stages of economic recovery, tax policy could be reformed to achieve the same revenue levels without raising marginal tax rates.

The commission might find fertile common ground on steps to improve the tax code in ways that would increase efficiency and thus increase revenues. A thorough scrubbing of the system to identify preferences that serve no compelling use or that could be altered in a resetting of priorities is long overdue.

The fact that the commission’s short-term goal is to achieve a lower deficit by 2015 and not sooner suggests a tax policy strategy that could acknowledge the concern of many economists about the dangers of “unwinding” our currently stimulative fiscal stance too quickly. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that President Obama has proposed to permanently extend could instead be extended only temporarily. If done for one or two years, this would be long enough not just to allow for a more solid economic recovery, but also long enough to develop a more fundamental reform of the federal tax system that could more efficiently achieve current-law revenue levels by 2015.

This would provide an opportunity to enact a tax policy that meets the commission’s 2015 goal, while earning bipartisan support, while also building a tax system capable of remaining adequate and economically efficient over the longer term — boosting our chances for economic growth and a more sustainable fiscal future.

And so, Ezra’s take-away lesson from the CBO report is (emphasis added):

Either Congress can pass and implement policies that will bring the long-term deficit under control or it can’t. Those are the only two choices here. But there’s no real mechanism for getting the deficit under control aside from Congress passing laws and then sticking to them.

I’ll have some of my own analysis of the CBO long-term outlook report later this week. There have been some changes to the two baselines CBO defines, some of those changes a bit puzzling and even intriguing.

(My Concord colleague, Josh Gordon, blogged more comprehensively about the CBO report and Bob’s testimony on Concord’s Tabulation blog today. As he emphasizes, our recommendations for achieving longer-term fiscal sustainability are not just “stick with current tax law” or the “stick with the current-law revenue baseline.” The largest longer-term challenge remains health care spending. But the biggest and most reliable “2015 lever” is clearly tax policy, and no matter how great the health-reform lever eventually works decades from now, we’ll still need the tax system to support that not-so-outrageous-but-still-expensive health care system over the longer run.)