The Slow Economic Recovery-Becker

The financial crisis produced the most severe recession since the end of World War II in all the important measures of economic performance, aside from unemployment rates. Unemployment peaked at 10.2% in 2009, whereas it peaked at 10.8% in December 1982 at the end of the deep recession that spanned 1981-82. The recovery from that earlier recession was rapid, as unemployment was down to about 7.5% by 1984, and GDP grew rapidly in 1983 and 1984. By contrast, as Posner indicates, GDP growth has been slow to moderate in the two years following the official end in 2009 of the past recession. Real GDP is about 10% below the level it would have been at if growth in GDP continued after 2008 at its long term rate of 3% per year.

At the height of the financial crisis, the media frequently had discussions of the “failure of capitalism”, and the need to radically rein in the private sector through extensive regulations and other government activities. The politically liberal Congress elected in 2008 along with President Barack Obama reflected these views. In addition to taking various steps to try to fight the recession, leading members of the new Congress, and President Obama as well, considered they had a mandate to reengineer the American economy through more radical government interventions (see the discussion of uncertainty and the recovery by Steven Davis, Kevin Murphy, and myself in the Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2010, “Uncertainty and the Slow Recovery”).

In addition to repeated attacks on American business, especially banks (some of the attacks on banks were well deserved), Congress passed an expensive stimulus package that did not stimulate much. The health care bill Congress passed seems likely to increase the cost to small and large businesses of providing health insurance for employees. Congressional leaders proposed high taxes on carbon emissions, large increases in taxes on higher income individuals, corporate profits, and capital gains as part of vocal attacks on “billionaires”. Many in Congress wanted to cap, or at least control, compensation of executives. Proposals were advanced to make anti-trust laws less pro-consumer, and more protective of competitors from aggressive and innovative companies. Congress passed and the president signed a financial reform bill that is a complicated and a politically driven mixture of sensible reforms, and senseless changes that have little to do with stabilizing the financial architecture, or correcting what was defective in prior regulations.

It is no surprise that this rhetoric and the proposed and actual policies discouraged business investment and slowed down the recovery. Yet, I had expected the recovery to speed up after radical approaches to the American economy were repudiated in the 2010 Congressional elections, when many of the more liberal members of Congress lost their seats. For a while the economy did began to pick up, as unemployment declined quite rapidly from hovering around 10% to about 9% at end of 2010, and GDP started growing faster. But then the economy stalled. The challenge is to explain the drift in the unemployment rate during the past several months, and the rather tepid growth in GDP that have raised fears of a “double-dip”.

Some of the slow-down in the American economy is undoubtedly due to problems in the world economy: the excessive Greece debt and other serious economic problems facing a slowly growing European Community, the nuclear disaster in Japan and the sluggishness of the Japanese economy, and the possible slowing of the rapid growth in both the Chinese and Indian economies. Another part is explained by the policies that slowed the early stages of the recovery, perhaps especially uncertainty about the effects of the financial reform act, and lack of clarity about the cost implications to business of the health care act.

I am persuaded that an important third part is due to concerns that the US will be unable to control its fiscal situation. The ratio of federal government spending to GDP grew from about 21% in 2007 to 25% in 2011, a very rapid change compared to the relative stability of this ratio during the prior 25 years. Unfortunately, there is not yet a strong enough will in Congress and by the president to lower this ratio during the coming decade. Indeed, with the looming enormous growth in entitlement spending, especially Medicare, the spending to GDP ratio could well increase sharply in the coming decade, along with the fiscal deficit and the federal debt.

Liberal Democrats continue to be reluctant to agree to big cuts in government spending. Many Republicans have come out against increasing any taxes, even though sensible tax reform toward a flatter and broader based income tax would raise the taxes paid by some taxpayers. The most attractive reform of Medicare put forward by any member of Congress is Paul Ryan’s proposal to provide grants to the elderly to buy health insurance, with the size of the grant falling with the income of the recipient (see our discussion of his “Roadmap” in posts for April 4, 2011). But Ryan’s Medicare proposal has been rejected not only by Democrats, but also by leading members of his own party.

To many investors, the future of the American economy looks dim and also uncertain. I am a perennial optimist about America, but even I have moments of serious doubts: not about the ability to solve these problems, but about the will to do so. The best way to get American fiscal and other economic problems under control, and thereby “stimulate” the economy, is to institute growth oriented policies that would increase the long-term growth rate beyond the 3% average annual GDP growth rate of the past 130 years. These policies include tax reform, cuts in entitlement spending, and more sensible regulations that are less dependent on discretion by regulators (see my post for December 6, 2010 for a discussion of these and other proposals).

 

Comments

[Analy]

I was so confused about what to buy, but this makes it undretsandalbe.

[Wasajja]

we put that net into place, we will not grow at the same rate (2.2%). we'll drop to 1.7% or worse....[Lucas'] whole argument is that we will drop in % terms as we move to a eoaepurn nominal level."Which Lucas asserts without proof: that the US would fall to European growth rates (gasp), when the growth rates have been the same for the last 40 years. For the US GDP per capita lead over the EU15 to decrease in the future, future US GDP growth rates must be lower that future EU15 growth rates.The data shows that the US and Europe grew at the same % rate over the past 40 years. Why do you, and Lucas, assume the U.S. growth rate would fall because the US social safety net is stronger?That's what I don't see evidence presented for in Lucas' piece. Did I miss it? If Lucas' point is true (that social safety net spending is a tax on GDP growth), and the real GDP per capita growth rate for the EU15 (with strong net) has been the same as the US (lesser net), then doesn't that imply the EU15 growth rate, with a US-comparable net, would have been higher than the US?(Tyler Cowen's arguments of the foolishness of this discussion aside)@Ron H - "What puzzles me, is why so many who comment on this blog seem to struggle with math." Not sure if that is directed at me, but I simply don't understand how one can separate future levels and future growth rates - the are two sides of the same coin. Literally two variables in one compound-growth equation. Is that math enough?

[antonette]

"Are you arguing the inceeasrd unemployment comp has caused this weak recovery, and not de-leveraging from historical leverage leading to weak end demand? Really?"i am arguing that inceeasrd governmental spending has crowded out private spending, and that, just as in the 30's, a more muscular regulatory environment and the restrictions and uncertainty it creates have caused underinvestment and a lack of business confidence.and now we want to add higher taxes to the stew?seriously, can you honestly tell me you don't think these things diminish business confidence and growth?i suggest you read amity shlae's excellent book about the 30's "the forgotten man". it does an excellent job of cataloging the damage that big government fascist policies do.FDR was a fascist. he even admitted as much while it was still fashionable. he was a big admirer of mousollini. obama is a big admirer of FDR.it amazes me that we cannot, as a society, seem to learn these lessons in any durable fashion.i note that you have dodge the "how can taking money from the productive and giving it to the unproductive not decrease growth" question.seriously, what's your answer. until you can answer that, you argument has no underpinning at all.

[Jackson]

Morganovich,Thank you for your kind words. I don't think that the current avoreisn to immigrants is necessarily based on our growing welfare state. Historically, immigrants were feared and disliked and immigration controls have existed throughout at least the 20th century here. As I'm sure you know, racism and xenophobia is the norm in Europe. They all hate each other and everyone else. That's not a result of socialism - they've always been that way. But, I have no doubt that socialism intensifies those clan feelings.Mr. Methinks has maintained his other citizenship and I will get one from Nevis as soon as I get a chance to fly down there and make the required investment. I've long had my eye on it.i would hate to give up us citizenship, but there's a price at which i would.Ditto. How sad that I even have an exit strategy. I fear that only the early movers will be able to get away. The U.S. can always change the law and there will be no push back from the public as we will be painted as treasonous bastards unwilling to pay our "fair share".

[sellairmax2012]

Mens Nike Air Max LTD Leather Shoes White Black

Mens Nike Air Max LTD Leather Shoes White Black
Mens Nike Air Max LTD Leather Shoes White Black
Mens Nike Air Max LTD Leather Shoes White Black. When the shredder is removed from the container the machine automatically shuts off. For the money you will be very hard pressed to find another set of wireless headphones that can do what the Pioneer Se-DIR800C can do. he water reservoir of the Gaggia Platinum Visionis bigger than most - it can take 57 ounces, which means you can get a continuous stream of double cup after double cup. Mens Nike Air Max LTD Leather Shoes White Black. Be careful to read the terms and conditions and be sure that you don't stretch yourself too much. Nike Air Max 2012. If your products are exposed to heated environments, they will evaporate very quickly. There are really many retailers offering the shoes at much lower price and also free delivery of the footwear.

Article Source: http://www.sellairmax2012.com/