Krugman On Austerity: How About Looking At The Facts For A Change?

New York Times economist and editorial writer, Paul Krugman, has headed the Left’s crusade against austerity, both in the United States and across the industrialized world. To Krugman, “austerity” does not denote a careful husbanding of government money. Rather austerity denotes unwisely large cuts in government spending that, he claims, threaten economic growth and recovery. Krugman bases his opposition to austerity on an empirical assertion that we can test; namely: “Across the advanced world, big spending cuts have been associated with deeper slumps.”

Krugman’s testable hypothesis, therefore, is: Countries that experience large reductions in government spending grow more slowly (or not at all or worse).

Just as some people speak before they think. Krugman seems to believe his asserting something to be true makes it true. The scientific method does not work this way, however. It requires that we first gather the facts on government spending and growth. Second, we must use these facts to test the Krugman hypothesis of a positive relationship between government spending and growth.  

The scientific method, so applied, shows Krugman’s facts to be wrong (where are the “big spending cuts”) and it refutes his hypothesis. Not a good day for Mr. Krugman. Next time, he should gather and test the facts before he writes.

 


go to forbes.com

Sorry, Mr. Reich: Your Economics Grade Is Still F (Reply to Robert Reich)

In my Robert Reich’s F Minus In Economics: False Facts, False Theories, I gave Professor Reich an F for his Higher wages can save America’s economy — and its democracy. For those who missed it, the reasons for my grade (as a 40-year teacher of economics) are Reich’s lamentable disregard for facts and his lack of knowledge of basic economics. My specific criticisms included:

First, Reich’s assertion that America’s growth and prosperity rest on a “basic bargain” that corporations pay their workers enough so that they can buy their products is wrong.  Reich claims the bargain was pioneered by Henry Ford in 1914, who decided to pay his workers enough to buy his Model T’s.

Second, historical statistics show Reich’s assertion that the Great Depression was caused by businesses allowing wages to stagnate and profits to soar in the 1920s is false.

go to forbes.com 

Ideological Blinders Prevent An Obama Pivot On The Economy

President Barack Obama and Japan’s Shizo Abe both face sluggish economies that have been stimulated to the limit with few, if any, positive results. To his credit, Abe recognizes the need for the politically tough “structural reforms” of credit, agriculture, and retail sales to restore Japanese growth. Obama ignores the deep structural problems of the U.S. economy – over regulation, the uncertainties of Obama Care, anti-growth tax policy, and growing entitlement incentives not to work. Instead, he offers minor sops masquerading as reform, and blames his five-years-out-of-office predecessor for what is wrong today. Under Abe, Japan, at last, has a chance of revitalization. Under Obama, the U.S. will see more of the same. He cannot attack the structural problems restraining the U.S. recovery because they are largely of his own making. The pitiful recovery was authored in Washington.

In yesterday’s hour and four minute speech, President Obama reprised his many “pivot to the economy” speeches of the past: He inherited a mess from Bush, but he got America moving again. He has been blocked by a recalcitrant opposition determined to see him fail.  Without his bold actions, we would still be mired in a painful recession. The President paraded a wish list of shopworn mini-fixes – youth training, mortgage relief, more infrastructure investment — and “mother and apple pie” calls to bring American jobs and manufacturing back home. He failed to offer any concrete proposals how to create jobs and accelerate tepid growth.

go to forbes.com

Why The Financial Press Buys Into A Non-Existent Keynesian Consensus

Few Wall Street Journal readers know that its news and opinion sections are written and managed separately. Whereas the opinion section – as edited by the late Robert Bartley and now Paul Gigot – consistently champions fiscal discipline, smaller government,  and lower marginal tax rates, analysts from the Journal’s news side – David Wessel and Gerald Seib, in particular – are consistent proponents of Keynesian tax and spend policy. That the news section delivers conclusions at odds with the opinion section puts the Journal at risk of an errant headline like: “The Wall Street Journal Says Keynes Was Right.”

David Wessel consistently represents the Keynesian party line in the news section. In his most recent analysis, his conclusions about the effects of the sequester coincide with none other than the New York Times’ Paul Krugman. Although Wessel’s language is more restrained, their conclusions boil down to one and the same.

go to forbes.com 

Why Obama Cannot Match Germany's Jobs Miracle

In 2002, Chancellor Gerhard Schroder appointed a jobs council headed by Volkswagen’s Peter Hartz to solve Germany’s high unemployment. In 2011, President Barack Obama similarly appointed a jobs commission headed by General Electric's Jeffrey Immelt to achieve the same goal.  (At the time, Schroeder headed the SPD, the equivalent of America’s Democratic Party.)

Germany’s labor market turned around in a dramatic fashion after Schroeder implemented the Hartz Commission’s sweeping reforms between 2002 and 2005. In contrast, Obama’s Immelt Council quietly disbanded without making substantive proposals, and America’s worst jobs recovery of the postwar period continued.

Obama cannot duplicate the German reforms. They reject his Keynesian belief that jobs are created by government stimulus.  Instead, the Hartz reforms rest on the common sense notion that people take jobs when work, rather than welfare, pays. Such an approach violates Obama’s core belief that government must make the lives of the unemployed as comfortable as possible. No, the Germans say. If the state gives too much, the unemployed will have no incentive to take jobs, even when they are available.

go to forbes.com

Infrastructure Gap? Look at the Facts. We Spend More Than Europe

Big government advocates seek to substitute “infrastructure” for the “s” (stimulus) word. President Obama’s State of the Union address called for $40 billion to fix the nation’s roads and bridges and also called for a federal infrastructure bank.  On April 29, he called for an additional $4 billion of infrastructure spending. $40 billion here and $4 billion there, and soon you have some real money.

To convince a wary public to spend more with trillion dollar deficits, big government advocates must gin up a national infrastructure emergency that threatens safety, jobs, and well being. Public spending lobbyists are ready to oblige with D+ report cards for  “aging and unreliable” roads, bridges, and ports. Big government advocates substitute scare tactics for the facts that our infrastructure is as good as Europe’s and that we spend more than the European Union on public investment. If we spend as much or more and have inferior infrastructure that is a political failure of untold proportions for which someone should pay.

go to forbes.com

'Sequester Costs 750,000 Jobs' From Those Who Gave Us the Four-Million-Job Stimulus

 The Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, testified on February 13 before Congress that 750,000 jobs would be lost in 2013  alone if Congress does not avoid the sequester cuts (source). To put that estimate in perspective: the economy gained 741,000 jobs between September and January 1. Per Elmendorf: The sequester cut, reported to be $85 billion in 2013, will set us back four months of job growth. I say, using the experience of the 2009 stimulus, that the 2013 sequester cuts will cost us zero jobs.

go to forbes.com

On the Failed Job Creation Front, Obama Has Completely Run Out of Ideas

Unemployment is the millstone around President Obama’s neck in the 2012 election campaign. Attentive voters understand he is offering excuses — a worse-than-expected economy, financial crises requiring longer recoveries, bad luck of tsunamis, droughts, and the Euro — not solutions. Obama cannot deliver solutions because a real jobs program contradicts his core principles, alienates his base, and infuriates his crony contributors. He can only promise more of the failed policies –stimulus and tinkering — of his first three and a half years
.
Obama’s last foray into job creation was his American Jobs Act (AJA) submitted to Congress on September 12, 2011.  Labeled “Stimulus 2” by its critics, Obama’s shopworn list of remedies, promised to “put more people back to work and put more money in the pockets of working Americans….without adding a dime to the deficit.” The AJA’s temporary tax credits to businesses that hire, extension of the payroll tax holiday, and more money for teachers and infrastructure stalled in both Houses and had to be taken up piecemeal.  The payroll tax holiday extension passed Congress. Small businesses decided his tax credits for hiring were not worth the trouble.

A deafening silence followed.  Obama’s vaunted Jobs Task Force has not met for more than a half year. Obama is out of ideas. He can only offer excuses, criticize those offering new solutions, and divert attention from the worst recovery in history with chatter about the rich not paying their fair share and his opponent’s tax returns.

One year ago, on the eve of the President’s jobs address, I wrote Why Obama Cannot Support a Real Jobs Program.  In this piece, I showed what a real jobs program looks like and how it largely would have increased jobs, to use Obama’s AJA message, “without adding a dime to the deficit.” Here is the substance of what I wrote then as advice to the President:

go to forbes.com

Add Disability to Obama's Anti-Jobs Policies

As the election draws closer, the two most closely watched economic indicators are the unemployment rate and the number of jobs created.  On June 1, the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued bad economic news. The number of jobs created was only 69,000 and the unemployment rate increased from 8.1 to 8.2 percent. In a presidential campaign, the difference between an 8.2 and a 7.5 percent unemployment rate or a month of 250,000 jobs versus 69,000 can be the difference between re-election and defeat.

The die is already cast. Obama bet all his money on Keynesian stimulus propped up by super-expansionary monetary policy, the Detroit bailout, and extensions of unemployment insurance. He has nothing left other than infrastructure projects, subsidies for state teachers and first responders, and a feeble jobs credit for small business. The one move that could turn things around quickly — extension of the Bush tax cuts – would deprive Obama of his prime campaign message that “the rich must pay their fair share.”

In a piece dated August 28, 2011 Why Obama Cannot Support a Real Jobs Program, I laid out an anti-Keynesian jobs program to create jobs and lower the unemployment rate. The third point in my program read “to create economic conditions that encourage businesses to hire and the unemployed to seek and accept jobs.” To do this, I advised not to extend unemployment benefits and to reduce the minimum wage, particularly for youths. The President did not follow my advice and look where he is now.
I wish to throw the social security disability into the mix of anti-job programs. The disability program is not the creation of the Obama administration, but Obama appointees have set and interpreted its policies for more than three years. Let’s examine their record:

got to forbes.com to continue reading this article

Dr. Gregory's latest book can be found at Amazon.com.

A Shame the Republicans Must Let Politics Trump Economics

The extension of the payroll tax holiday is bad economics. It may be good politics, or avoids a bad political outcome.

Economists know that temporary tax breaks have little or no effect on aggregate demand. Reducing payroll taxes for the rest of the year only increases the unfunded liability of social security and increases uncertainty.  The net effect on growth and employment of extending the payroll tax reduction is likely to be negative. It is bad economics to all but die hard Keynesians.

Republicans are going along with bad economics because they are unable (or unwilling) to make the powerful economic case for ending the tax break. The longer it lasts, the more likely it is to become permanent, with disastrous results.

I guess we have little confidence in the good sense of American voters. If they are worried about the solvency of social security, clearly they could be made to understand that you don’t take away a large portion of its funding, for uncertain and unlikely short term gain.

Republican leaders wilt when they hear the President speaking about the extra $1,000 in the pockets of U.S. households.

Too bad.

Those CBO Growth and Budget Projections: Just Forget About Them

The CBO 2012 and 2013 projections grabbed a lot of attention when they were released earlier in the week. The headlines were that growth will slow to two percent in 2012 and one percent in 2013, unemployment will rise to over nine percent by 2013, but the deficit will shrink dramatically. All of these calculations are based, as I pointed out in a recent blog, on discredited Keynesian models anyway.

None of these things will happen because the policy assumptions on which these projections are based will never materialize. The Bush tax cuts will not be dropped in their entirety (a slight possibility if Obama is reelected). Discretionary spending will not decline in absolute value over a five year period, and the various cuts in Medicare will not take place.

Actually the CBO points all this out, but commentators look only at the headlines and ignore the crucial details that tell us: “Never mind.”

Will the New York Times Publish These Results?

"NEW YORK -- The majority of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics believe that the federal deficit should be reduced only or primarily through spending cuts.
The survey out Monday found that 56 percent of the NABE members surveyed felt that way, while 37 percent said they favor equal parts spending cuts and tax increases. The remaining 7 percent believe it should be done only or mostly through tax increases."

Where is the Keynesian consensus the mainstream press writes about?

On the day this survey was released, the New York Times  published two interviews with fund managers (I guess they represent everyone) saying we need to spend more now and save later.

Yes, There Is No Mainstream or Consensus on Stimulus Spending

In its Sunday edition, the New York Times informed its readers that “a wide range of economists say the administration should call for a new round of stimulus spending, as prescribed by mainstream economic theory, to create jobs and promote growth.”

In my post of August 11 Paul Gregory Forbes I rejected the notion of a  consensus and pointed out that  the seven Nobel Prizes  went to economists who cast doubt on the Keynesian model and zero to  economists for advancing the Keynesian agenda. The Nobel prize committee itself has cast serious doubt on the characterization of Keynesian economics as “mainstream.”

In his “No Near-Consensus Among Economists for Another Stimulus Package” John Taylorwrites “there are plenty of economists who think that gradually reducing spending and not increasing taxes is better for job creation.  In June, for example, 150 economists (including me) wrote that a debt deal ‘that is not accompanied by significant spending cuts and budget reforms would harm private-sector job growth.’”

Disagreement among economists on Keynesian stabilization policy is not new. Two researchers  analyzed a randomized survey of one thousand members of the American Economic Association from 2003. AEA members were asked their views on a wide range of issues, including a set of questions on the economic role of government. The results of this study were published in 2006.

The key question for our purpose is the degree of support for “tuning the economy by fiscal policy.”  Some fifty percent supported strongly or mildly and thirty percent opposed as of 2003. The rest had mixed feelings. Of the eight questions on the role of government, the Keynesian fiscal policy question had the greatest variance – that is the greatest amount of disagreement. Note that this question is not ideal. It was asked at a time of rapid economic growth and low unemployment and did not address the question of a stimulus as huge as we have recently seen.

Note that AEA members were last surveyed in 2003. If there is a consensus about the last three years, I would imagine it would be that the massive Obama stimulus failed. For this reason, the same survey today should yield even larger percentages of Keynesian skeptics

The professional competence of the average economist to answer questions on macroeconomic stabilization has diminished over the past two decades. The high growth and low unemployment starting in the early 1980s diverted attention of economists from the business cycle. Accordingly, relatively few economists know the modern stabilization literature. We do not have a survey of economists who specialize in the business cycle. The results of such a survey would be informative.

A final note: As of 2003, democratic-voting economists outnumbered republican-voting economists by almost three-to-one. The vast majority of those answering the fiscal tuning  question voted democratic..

Personally, I do not see the mainstream consensus that the New York Times does. Perhaps I am too dense.

The authors of the survey report an interesting fact about the answers of the surveyed economists:  “Economists have something of a reputation for favoring free-market principles, yet we see that economists on average are supportive of most economic interventions, mixed on a few interventions, and opposed only on immigration (weakly opposed to tighter restrictions), government ownership of industry, and tariffs. It seems that most economists in fact stand in the  middle of the road or even on the interventionist side. Why, then, do they have a reputation for being free-market supporters?”

Daniel Klein and Charlotta Stern, Economists’ Policy Views and Voting,” Public Choice (2006) 126: 331–342, 2006