Where did all the stimulus go... (When will they ever learn?)

By -
In Jan 2009, proposing almost $1 trillion in new spending, President-elect Obama said: "...at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy..."

Obama's team released expectations of the unemployment rate with and without the stimulus. Their  prediction for the unemployment rate at the end of Obama's term with and without the stimulus, was -- drum roll -- 5.2% as against 5.5%! They also predicted that by 2014, we'll be about the same with or without the stimulus. Here are the options they offered us, using their figures and assumptions, not mine:
  • without stimulus, (red line) unemployment will rise to 9% and go down slowly to 5% by 2014
  • with stimulus (orange line), unemployment will rise to 8% and go down much faster reaching 5% by 2014
Here is a graph of unemployment rates. Notice the 7 or 8 cycles of hope and gloom since just 1950. I've added in the Obama forecasts for 2009 and later. Even if things had gone according to forecast, the cost is huge -- the additional debt. Worse still, the estimates were arbitrary pie-in-the-sky numbers. Compared to what actually happened, one cannot claim this was a simple error in estimation. It points to ignorance.

Of course, Obama will argue the counter-factual: if we had not borrowed and spent a couple of trillion, things would have been worse; but...

History shows otherwise: The most famous example of public works in the U.S. was Roosevelt's various programs. So, let's turn to Henry Morgenthau Jr., Roosevelt's Treasury Secy. from 1934 to 1945. Even though he was not fully sold on the New Deal, he was a loyal friend to Roosevelt. Speaking at a private meeting in 1939, Morgenthau said: "We have tried spending money. We have spent more than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. We have never made good on our promises. I say, after 8 years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started, and an enormous debt to boot."

Despite the historical evidence, Keynesianism refuses to die. As investment manager Jeremy Grantham says "...never underestimate the unwillingness of academics to change their views in the face of evidence".

Finally, a cartoon can sometimes speak better than words. [Hat tip: Not PC]

Notes: Morgenthau quote, from Burton Folsom

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Country Shares of World GDP

By -
Image
Here's a chart of world GDP, broken down by country share. ( HT: Carpe Diem ). Careful with the x-axis, it is not at all to scale! The basic idea is that India and China had large shares pre-industrial revolution, after which Europe rose. The U.S. shoots up, to over 40% of world GDP by 1950. Then, Japan begins to grow in the 1960s, and China in the 1980s. Suppose countries end up with GDPs proportionate to their populations. What would that picture look like? I've added a bar to the right, showing the break-down of world-population. Look at the U.S. squished down, with less that 400 million out of a world population of over 7,000 million. The biggest change is in the previously un-noticed 'rest of the world". If Africa, the Middle East and so on moved toward freedom, that could be the story of the century.  What if they do not? Here's a chart with a new assumption. Suppose the "rest-of-world" does not increase its relative s...
Read more

TARP

By -
The Daily Show Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes , Political Humor & Satire Blog , The Daily Show on Facebook ( Link, in case the video above does not play ) In the video above, the Daily Show slams the Fed for giving banks $7.7 trillion in secret. This is a gross misrepresentation that started with a shoddy Bloomberg story and was later echoed elsewhere in the Blogosphere. Simply put, the Fed did not lend anywhere near $7.7 trillion . It was closer to $2 Trillion. Secondly, this total was widely publicized at the time. (What was kept secret was the details about which banks got funds and how much. Everyone knew the details were not being disclosed, and some politicians were quite vocal asking for the details.) The Fed responded to Bloomberg's article, and Bloomberg says they "stand by their reporting", but the details of their clarification show that they were at least guilty of writing in a way that readers might easily be misled. As much as I woul...
Read more

How're we doing on Unemployment? (Feb 2012 Edition)

By -
Image
In October I posted some GDP graphs from the excellent Calculated Risk blog. In summary,  "Real Personal Income"  was still 5% below the pre-recession peak when ignoring "transfer payments".  Additionaly, in four years of recession, the population has grown, and the numbers look worse on a per-capita basis. In this post, I switch my focus to unemployment. Unemployment rate has bottomed:   Here is a graph ( sharper original on Calculated Risk ), comparing the rise of unemployment (downward in the graph) in past recessions, and how soon the rate recovered to its pre-recession level. Post WW-II,  the unemployment rate has never turned so weak nor has it remained weak for so long. Based on historical patterns, it is optimistic to think unemployment will return to its recent pre-recession low (about 5%) any time in the next 2 years. Participation rate falling: One problem with the unemployment rate is that it under-counts dejected workers who have gi...
Read more