The Fiscal Cliff

By -
"The fiscal cliff", is a poor name, that obscures through metaphor. Call it what it is:  a little deficit reduction. All the cries to "not go over the cliff" are cries to not reduce the deficit. CNBC, usually middle-of-road is running a campaign called "Rise Above", asking law-makers not to reduce the deficit (i.e. not to go over the cliff)!

Taxes will rise if: 
  • the "Bush tax cuts" and "AMT exception" expire, 
  • the Payroll tax goes back, up to its normal rate
Some government spending will falls if:
  • unemployment benefits go back down to their normal rate
  • "sequestration" agreed to when extending the debt-ceiling kicks in
Too much too soon: Keynesians never want to reduce deficits, but they couch their appeal saying: "don't cut right now", "don't cut too much" or "don't cut too abruptly". Yes, tightening will cause some short-term pain, but it'll be worse later.

Wake up call needed: Consider the Personal Savings Rate. After the current bust, it rose from a low of 2% to about 4%. That shows people changing behavior, but not enough. It has started to waver. If people really thought we were facing a "new normal" in the economy, and that entitlements were going to be reduced, this rate would rise further as people cut back spending.

So, while a recession causes pain and disruption, perhaps a second downturn (as opposed to our flat stagnation) is a required wake up call.


 Will probably be avoided: The consensus of political gurus seems to be that the Democrats and GOP will reach a deal. However, there is no point reaching a deal that postpones the issue, or even makes it worse by adding more fiscal "stimulus".






Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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