The Path to Economic Recovery

 Financial FAQs

Calculated Risk

There is a path to economic recovery from the worst recession since the Great Recession—and maybe the Great Depression. But it means escaping from the free market economic orthodoxy that has prevailed since 1980, and which has been the major contributing factor of six recessions since 1980, all occurring during Republican administrations.

Concurring events don’t necessarily determine facts, but we know such a boom and bust mentality has been the hallmark of conservative calls for fewer regulations and lower taxes historically. The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 to even out such booms and busts after the stock swindles of the early 1900’s Gilded Age, and the ‘roaring twenties’ financial markets that led to the 1928 market crash and ultimately Great Depression were also eras when governments had few regulations to tame such speculation.

The most recent example during the Clinton administration when budget surpluses were generated during his last four years. The moment President Bush took office, Vice President Cheney trumpeted Reagan’s maxim that “budget deficits don’t matter,” and fired Paul O’Neill, his first budget-conscious budget director that had recommended using the surplus to pay down the national debt to shore up social security and other social programs.

Bush instead proceeded to cut taxes so much that the first $trillion national debt was born and two recessions followed during his eight years, including the Great Recession of 2007.

In fact, if we look at Calculated Risk’s graph history of job loss durations since 1948, we see that the longest job recoveries took place during the 1980 (black line), 2001 (brown line), 2007 (blue line), and 2020 (red line) recessions; all during Republican administrations when budget deficits no longer mattered, as I said.

It goes back to the conservative free market, small government orthodoxy that government regulations retard growth, when since 1980 it has been the de-regulation of whole industries and championing of free-market maxims that have increased the boom and bust cycles we have seen since then, while worsening our income inequality.

There is much more that went into these recessions, of course, such as Reagan’s the cold war arms race with Russia, the Desert Storm Gulf War of GW Bush, and Iraq-Afghanistan invasions of GW Bush that they paid for with borrowed money.

But the dire results of such free market orthodoxy are incontrovertible, as Rutger’s economic history James Livingston put it once in a memorable NY Times Op-ed that described what corporations do with most of their profits these days.

In the early 1900s, most business investment came from the private sector, not government, whereas by 2000 most of such investments—in public projects as well as research to develop new products and services—came from government.

And that was in large part because of the sky-high tax rates for the wealthiest and corporations that prevailed immediately after World War Two—as high as 90 percent during the Eisenhower years and beyond. As President Eisenhower once put it, higher taxes induce people and businesses to invest more in their future, rather than pay Uncle Sam.

“So corporate profits do not drive economic growth — they’re just restless sums of surplus capital,” Professor Livingston wrote, “ready to flood speculative markets at home and abroad. In the 1920s, they inflated the stock market bubble, and then caused the Great Crash. Since the Reagan revolution, these superfluous profits have fed corporate mergers and takeovers, driven the dot-com craze, financed the “shadow banking” system of hedge funds and securitized investment vehicles, fueled monetary meltdowns in every hemisphere and inflated the housing bubble.”

The COVID-19 pandemic has created the need to do what was done when past generations faced the Great Depression and World War Two. They are government policies (more progressive taxation is one such) that will induce US to create more sustainable growth paths with fewer booms and busts, as President Eisenhower foresaw.

Harlan Green © 2020

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

It's the Consumer, Stupid

Answering the Kennedys Call—Part II

New York Times’ economic writer Neil Irwin in a recent Op-ed is not seeing a very robust future for global economic growth. “…what the last few months have made clear is that the forces that have held back the global economy for the last 11 years are not temporary, and have not gone away…The low-growth world was not just a phase. It’s the new reality beneath every macroeconomic question and debate for the foreseeable future.”

Really? Much of such pessimistic forecasting is based on a faulty understanding of economic history. I am paraphrasing the title of a controversial and little noticed 2011 New York Times Op-ed by Rutger’s history professor James Livingston, at a time when recovery from the Great Recession was still in doubt.

In it, he said, “As an economic historian who has been studying American capitalism for 35 years, I’m going to let you in on the best-kept secret of the last century: private investment — that is, using business profits to increase productivity and output — doesn’t actually drive economic growth. Consumer debt and government spending do. Private investment isn’t even necessary to promote growth.”

And yet most Americans still apparently buy the conservatives’ line that lower corporate and personal income taxes generate more jobs and growth, which hasn’t panned out for the latest Republican reduction in personal and corporate tax rates, either.

“Between 1900 and 2000,” wrote Professor Livingston, “real gross domestic product per capita (the output of goods and services per person) grew more than 600 percent. Meanwhile, net business investment declined 70 percent as a share of G.D.P. What’s more, in 1900 almost all investment came from the private sector — from companies, not from government — whereas in 2000, most investment was either from government spending (out of tax revenues) or “residential investment,” which means consumer spending on housing, rather than business expenditure on plants, equipment and labor.”

And that is why we have congresswoman Alexandria Octavio-Cortez’s call for a 70 percent maximum income tax rate and Presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren’s just announced proposal for a wealth tax on the richest Americans with accumulated net wealth of more than $50 million.

“Warren herself hasn’t issued many details of her plan,” said the LA Times on her announcement, “But according to UC Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, who advised her on the proposal, the tax would be 2 percent on net worth above $50 million and another 1 percent on net worth above $1 billion. They say it would affect about 75,000 U.S. households, or less than 0.1 percent of the total, and raise $2.75 trillion over 10 years. That’s about 0.1 percent of gross domestic product per year.”

American conservatives have worked to lower taxes on the wealthiest, while enhancing the monopoly powers of corporations since at least 1980. It has resulted in the greatest income and wealth inequality in U.S. modern history, as illustrated by this Urban Institute graph.

Urban Institute

The result has not been good for a participatory democracy, as I said last week. But returning $2.75 trillion to federal government coffers over 10 years would be good for democracy, whether it can be put to use to implement more social programs like paid family leave, some form of private/public universal health care program, at least $1 trillion in repairs and upgrades of our ageing infrastructure, more education spending on preschoolers, and paying down some of the outstanding $1 trillion in student debt.

All of these items would vastly improve economic growth, both today and for future generations. So there is no need to believe Neil Irwin’s lament that the world can’t escape its “low growth, low inflation rut.”

We have not been paying attention to economic history, but condemned to repeat what hasn’t worked, says Professor Livingston.

“So corporate profits do not drive economic growth — they’re just restless sums of surplus capital, ready to flood speculative markets at home and abroad. In the 1920s, they inflated the stock market bubble, and then caused the Great Crash. Since the Reagan revolution, these superfluous profits have fed corporate mergers and takeovers, driven the dot-com craze, financed the “shadow banking” system of hedge funds and securitized investment vehicles, fueled monetary meltdowns in every hemisphere and inflated the housing bubble.”

That’s why it’s time to begin to put some of America’s accumulated wealth to better use than has been the case in recent decades.

Harlan Green © 2019

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

Paying Sustainable Economic Growth Forward

Popular Economics Weekly

The Fed has said it wouldn’t begin to boost interest rates until sustainable economic growth was achieved. However, no one has actually defined what that means. Fed Chairman Bernanke defines it as when full employment is achieved, or the unemployment rate drops to around 6 percent. Others have said it is when Gross Domestic Product growth is back to the historical 3 percent plus rate from its 2 percent average of late.

But those metrics aren’t really definitions of sustainable growth, since they don’t take into account that portion of GDP invested in future growth. For no growth is sustainable unless investments are made in future, longer term growth, rather than held in corporate coffers or excess bank reserves. Senator Elizabeth Warren’s “paying forward” campaign speech is a good place to start in search of a truer definition of sustainable growth.

At a campaign stop in Massachusetts while running for Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, she famously said, "You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did."

That is as good a definition of sustainable economic growth as we can find. For instance, future growth isn’t possible without adequate infrastructure. Yet how much of current economic activity is funneled to roads these days with the American Society of Civil Engineers saying there is some $2.2 trillion in deferred infrastructure maintenance? Or, how much is being spent on education?

A recent OECD study of education worldwide cited the U.S. as the biggest spender in elementary education, but with meager results. And for post-high school programs, the United States is far outspent in public dollars. U.S. taxpayers picked up 36 cents of every dollar spent on college and vocational training programs. Families and private sources picked up the balance. Whereas in other OECD nations, it was roughly reversed: The public picked up 68 cents of every dollar in advanced training and private sources picked up the other 32 cents.

"When people talk about other countries out-educating the United States, it needs to be remembered that those other nations are out-investing us in education as well," said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, a labor union.

But there is one measure of sustainability that almost no one talks about, and that is boosting sustainable consumer spending. We know consumer spending makes up some 70 percent of U.S. economic activity, yet current economic policies depress household incomes by putting most of the tax burden on wage and salary earners via payroll taxes. Whereas income taxes have been steadily reduced over the past 30 years, so that billionaires such as Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet pay effective tax percentages in the teens.

Rutgers economic historian James Livingston has put it best in various Op-eds and articles.

“Growth has happened precisely because net private investment has been declining since 1919 and because consumer expenditures have, meanwhile, been increasing. In theory, the Great Depression was a financial meltdown first caused, and then cured, by central bankers. In fact, the underlying cause of this disaster wasn’t a short-term credit contraction engineered by bankers. The underlying cause of the Great Depression was a fundamental shift of income shares away from wages and consumption to corporate profits, which produced a tidal wave of surplus capital that couldn’t be profitably invested in goods production -- and wasn’t invested in goods production.”

“Now look,” said Senator Warren, “you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

There will always be a debate about how to share the wealth pie, but there should be no debate about investing in the future of America, which means our youth, but also a healthy environment and yes; a well-functioning health care system.

Harlan Green © 2013

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HarlanGreen

Deflation and Our Plunging Deficit

Popular Economics Weekly

The federal budget deficit is shrinking rapidly, says Goldman Sachs Chief Economist Jan Hatzius. And that is not such a good thing at the moment, since the private sector isn’t spending enough. It means this very weak recovery will continue, with deflationary tendencies still in the air.  And we do not want even lower inflation right now, as it depresses both incomes and economic growth.

President Obama’s new budget proposal doesn’t really help, since he wants to cut entitlement spending, which takes money out of circulation when more money in circulation is needed.

Deflationary tendencies are showing up in the Producer Price Index for wholesale goods, which has been close to zero since the end of the Great Recession. The annual rate in March just dropped to 1.1 percent from 1.8 percent in February (seasonally adjusted). The core rate held steady at 1.7 percent.

 

Graph: Econoday

The federal budget deficit is a subject Hatzius has been following for some time....”[I]n the 12 months through March 2013, the deficit totaled $911 billion, or 5.7 percent of GDP,” he said in a research note. “In the first three months of calendar 2013--that is, since the increase in payroll and income tax rates took effect on January 1--we estimate that the deficit has averaged just 4.5 percent of GDP on a seasonally adjusted basis. This is less than half the peak annual deficit of 10.1 percent of GDP in fiscal 2009.”

So it’s not hard to understand what caused the March plunge in retail sales of 0.4 percent, versus the 1 percent increase in February. Some of it was due to bad weather and the payroll tax increases, but most was due to shrinking private and government spending.

Personal incomes are fluctuating wildly due to the payroll tax increases, so my take is, it ain’t the weather as some pundits are saying! Sure personal income rebounded 1.1 percent in February after a drop of 3.7 percent in January and a 2.6 percent jump in December, as we said last week. But it’s not enough to boost demand. Consumer spending just isn’t holding up, the main reason for government to keep spending.

Graph: Econoday

Personal spending jumped 0.7 percent after rising 0.4 percent in January. Strength was in nondurable goods, but that was mostly higher gasoline prices. Consumer outlays are up 3.3 percent annually, but if prices aren’t rising then that’s not enough to boost overall growth.

Government spending has already decreased 4 percent in the past 2 years, the largest amount since demobilization of the Korean War. For then important spending priorities can be met—such as infrastructure, research and development, as well as hiring back some of the 600,000 teachers let go because of state budget shortfalls.

What about the mounting debt? Rutgers Economic Historian James Livingston has an answer. Bring corporate taxes back to the levels during the Eisenhower era, when they were taxed at a 52 percent rate and made up some one-third of tax revenues, instead of the much less progressive payroll tax that burdens most of us. Corporate taxes now make up just 9 percent of revenues, according to Professor Livingston.

So where there’s the will there’s a way, as the saying goes. We know how to climb out of the debt trap. Lessen the burden of taxing personal incomes and increase it for corporations that have record-breaking profits and are hoarding some $4.25 trillion in cash, according to the St. Louis Federal Reserve. It is a case of some good history repeating itself, for a change.

Harlan Green © 2013

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HarlanGreen

Why Do We Need QE3?

Financial FAQs

It’s not hard to see why we need “QE3”, the Fed’s bond buying program to keep long term interest rates low. It’s almost an act of desperation. The Fed is the only game in town to stimulate growth at the moment, when we are teetering on the edge of several ‘fiscal cliffs’.

That is, the private sector is not creating enough jobs on its own to pay down the budget deficit, or maintain a secure social safety net. In fact, the unemployment rate has to fall at least 2 points—close to 6 percent—to bring us near full employment and an economy that returns us to prosperity. The U.S. economy is also dealing with the prospect of another credit downgrade that could endanger our fiscal solvency.

“The stagnation of the labor market in particular is a grave concern not only because of the enormous suffering and waste of human talent it entails,” said Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke at the Fed’s annual Jackson Hole conference, “but also because persistently high levels of unemployment will wreak structural damage on our economy that could last for many years.”

Graph: Calculated Risk

There were just 96,000 payroll jobs added in August, with 103,000 private sector jobs added, and 7,000 government jobs lost. A meager total much below the first part of the year. The unemployment rate decreased to 8.1 percent (from the household survey), and the participation rate declined to 63.5 percent, mostly from the decline in manufacturing employment, which depends on exports which have flagged of late.

The reason for “persistently high levels of unemployment” is not a mystery. Incomes of the 80 percent of wage and salary earners whose spending powers most economic growth have fallen with no relief in sight when productivity gains are soaring. The problem is very little of those gains are flowing to the workers producing those goods and services.

From 1948 to 1973, the productivity of all nonfarm workers nearly doubled, as did average hourly compensation.  Although productivity increased by 80.1 percent from 1973 to 2011, average wages rose only 4.2 percent and hourly compensation (wages plus benefits) rose only 10 percent over that time, according to government data analyzed by the Economic Policy Institute.

That is a lesson that seems to have been lost at least since the 1970s. So until programs that stimulate actual job growth are enacted, there won’t be much more job growth, in spite of the Fed’s best efforts.

What programs are needed? This is also self-evident. Programs that decrease the record income inequality, the worst since the 1920s. And can be government-led, at the moment, without increasing the deficit. That is the misinformation being spread by those who do not understand growth. Romney, Ryan, et. al., don’t seem to realize that spending tax dollars on infrastructure, education, fire, police, healthcare, and the like, are actually dollars spent in the private sector that are deficit neutral. It’s called pay-as-you-go, the congressional rule that any spending increase had to be matched with a revenue increase. This rule that served President Clinton so well and enabled 4 consecutive budget surpluses, was only abandoned in 2000 when the Bush-Cheney administration cut taxes while increasing spending.

The huge inequality gap has reached historical levels not seen since 1928, which has depressed demand for the goods that drive growth. Economic historians such as Professor James Livingston, in particular, have known this. Private investment has been diminishing as a share of GDP since 1900. “So corporate profits do not drive economic growth — they’re just restless sums of surplus capital,” said Livingston, “ready to flood speculative markets at home and abroad. In the 1920s, they inflated the stock market bubble, and then caused the Great Crash. Since the Reagan revolution, these superfluous profits have fed corporate mergers and takeovers, driven the dot-com craze, financed the “shadow banking” system of hedge funds and securitized investment vehicles, fueled monetary meltdowns in every hemisphere and inflated the housing bubble.”

The policies that created such weak payroll numbers cannot be allowed to continue. Fed Chairman Bernanke and his Board of Governors are the only federal officials able to act at a time when our economic health hangs in the balance.

Harlan Green © 2012

What Has Caused Record Inequality (and Greater Recessions)?

Popular Economics Weekly

Economists Lawrence Mishel and Heidi Shierholz of the labor think tank Economic Policy Institute (EPI) have been asking a question in their latest work that is at the root of our various economic crises, “Why did the richest 1 percent of Americans receive 56 percent of all the income growth between 1989 and 2007, before the recession began (compared with 16 percent going to the bottom 90 percent of households)? Why are corporate profits 22 percent above their pre-recession level while total corporate sector employees’ compensation (reflecting lower employment and meager pay increases) is 3 percent below pre-recession levels?”

The answers have become becoming blindingly obvious in the glare of the Great Recession. A concerted effort by business interests in general, and Republicans in particular, instigated a massive transfer of newly created wealth from wage earners to the owners of capital via various measures, including lowering upper income tax rates, restricting employees collective bargaining, rolling back regulations on financial institutions, and the like.

Such a wealth transfer has caused tremendous harm to our economy and society. The major casualty has been recurring recessions since the 1970s brought on in large part by mountains of debt. In fact, most of that debt was taken out by households with declining incomes who took advantage of increasingly available credit to borrow to make up for their income shortfall.

What created the wealth? Information age technologies, which massively increased worker productivity. Labor productivity has increased 254 percent since 1948. Hourly wages, however, increased just 113 percent. That can be seen in Figure A from the EPI, which presents both the cumulative growth in productivity per hour worked of the total economy (inclusive of the private sector, government, and nonprofit sector) since 1948 and the cumulative growth in inflation-adjusted hourly compensation for private-sector production/nonsupervisory workers (a group comprising over 80 percent of payroll employment).

Figure A: EPI

That transfer of wealth since the 1970s has been well documented in books such as, Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson’s, “Winner Take-all Politics” that documents the massive lobbying effort by businesses to bring in business-friendly legislation and administrations resulting not only in the ownership of much of Congress, but an extremely conservative, corporate-friendly Supreme Court that in Citizen’s United now allows unlimited corporate donations to political campaigns, and so corporate control of 2 of the 3 branches of government for years to come.

The other side of that coin is blatant attempts by Republicans to suppress incomes by taking away collective bargaining rights of both private and public sector workers, such as happened in Wisconsin. The result is the almost disappearance of the middle class that has been the main driver of growth since WWII.

Big Business chose to raise their own incomes and that of their shareholders, but not their workers’ incomes, in other words. Yet Big Business was more than willing to lend consumers money via Wall Street and relaxed banking regulations, so much so that the personal savings rate dropped to almost zero during the Bush II administration, as the Calculated Risk graph clearly shows after peaking in 1980. Those consecutive recessions—6 since 1973—have been a tremendous drag on economic growth, in spite of the productivity increases.

Graph: Calculated Risk

According to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, the percentage of households holding revolving credit card debt rose from 16 percent in 1970 to 71 percent in 2004.

“Essentially, economic policy has not supported good jobs over the last 30 years or so,” said EPI. “Rather, the focus has been on policies that were thought to make consumers better off through lower prices: deregulation of industries, privatization of public services, the weakening of labor standards including the minimum wage, erosion of the social safety net, expanding globalization, and the move toward fewer and weaker unions. These policies have served to erode the bargaining power of most workers, widen wage inequality, and deplete access to good jobs. In the last 10 years even workers with a college degree have failed to see any real wage growth.”

All this has been part of an even larger trend, the maturing of our economy from industrial to a service-oriented economy dependent mostly on consumer demand, rather than capital investment as in the past. The result has been documented by Rutgers Economic Historian James Livingston. Though most economic activity over the past 100 years is generated by consumer spending, it hasn’t benefited most consumers.

This has to change. We can no longer tolerate such a diversion of wealth that has weakened our economic and social fabric so much that we have fallen behind the rest of the developed world in education, health care, ageing infrastructure, and even environmental protection.

Harlan Green © 2012

Corporate Austerity Not the Answer in 2012

Popular Economics Weekly

Why so much gloom and tentativeness about U.S. economic growth when all the indicators are looking up for 2012? For instance, the Conference Board’s Index of Leading Economic Indicators again showed positive growth ahead. It rose 0.4 percent with 7 of its 10 indicators positive.

And the Q4 ‘advance’ estimate of GDP growth was 2.8 percent, almost double Q3. Equipment and software, which includes autos and exports, was the largest component. It would be even higher if corporation would use more of their cash hoard for job creation, rather than speculative investments and excessive executive compensation.

Graph: Econoday

Could it be because of the euro’s problems? “This somewhat positive outlook for a strengthening domestic economy would seem to be at odds with a global economy that is losing some steam,” said Ken Goldstein, a Conference Board economist. “Looking ahead, the big question remains whether cooling conditions elsewhere will limit domestic growth or, conversely, growth in the U.S. will lend some economic support to the rest of the globe.”

But JP Morgan’s President Jamie Dimon said even the damage from a default of Greek debt would be “negligible”, in a CNBC interview at the Davos, Switzerland economic summit. So what’s the problem? The austerity (meaning deficit) hawks have their hands around the throats of European commerce. Why? In the mistaken belief that more stimulus spending will increase debt without actually causing more growth.

But Professor Robert Shiller, co-author of Animal Spirits with Nobelist George Akerlof, calls it debt delusion. When the private sector, including households, becomes over indebted, they begin to save more and spend less. But if governments do it at the same time, it causes a downward spiral towards deflation and recession or depression. This comes from the belief of fiscal conservatives that public borrowing takes money away from private users.

That, however, isn’t the case, because the private sector has plenty of funds, but is hoarding them (some $2 trillion in cash to date), rather than creating more jobs. So if governments are also hoarding their monies—in the form of trade or currency surpluses, as is happening in most of Europe today, then the bottom falls out of the economy. I.e., if no one is buying and everyone is saving, then no business gets done. This should be self-evident, because such a truth has been known since the Great Depression and New Deal that established our modern safety net, and ultimately put so many people back to work.

What underlies that truth is that Great Depressions and Great Recessions only happen when there is a wrenching transformation of whole economies. It was transformation of a mostly rural economy to manufacturing in the 1920s that brought on the Great Depression, and now it is wholesale migration of manufacturing jobs overseas and transformation to the Information Age, when little needs to be manufactured in the U.S.

Rutgers Econ Professor James Livingston has explained this transformation best in recent papers and articles. The great wealth shift away from wage earners-consumers to corporate profits began during the Great Depression, according to Livingston: “The underlying cause of that economic disaster (the Great Depression of 1929-33, 1937-38) was a fundamental shift of income shares away from wages/consumption to corporate profits that produced a tidal wave of surplus capital that could not be profitably invested in goods production—and, in fact, was not invested in good production…and that, on the other hand, produced the tidal wave of surplus capital which produced the stock market bubble of the late-1920s.”

And in a recent New York Times Op-ed, It’s Consumer Spending, Stupid, Livingston expands on the reasons for our current prolonged malaise:

“As an economic historian who has been studying American capitalism for 35 years, I’m going to let you in on the best-kept secret of the last century: private investment — that is, using business profits to increase productivity and output — doesn’t actually drive economic growth. Consumer debt and government spending do. Private investment isn’t even necessary to promote growth.”

This, to put it mildly, explodes that rationale used by Wall Street and corporations to justify not passing on more of their profits to consumers—80 percent of which are wage and salary earners. The reasoning being that it is their profits that drive growth.

Professor Livingston says, “Economists will tell you that private business investment causes growth because it pays for the new plant or equipment that creates jobs, improves labor productivity and increases workers’ incomes. As a result, you’ll hear politicians insisting that more incentives for private investors — lower taxes on corporate profits — will lead to faster and better-balanced growth.”

Not so, says Livingston, “But history shows that this is wrong. Between 1900 and 2000, real gross domestic product per capita (the output of goods and services per person) grew more than 600 percent. Meanwhile, net business investment declined 70 percent as a share of G.D.P. What’s more, in 1900 almost all investment came from the private sector — from companies, not from government — whereas in 2000, most investment was either from government spending (out of tax revenues) or “residential investment,” which means consumer spending on housing, rather than business expenditure on plants, equipment and labor.

“In other words, over the course of the last century, net business investment atrophied while G.D.P. per capita increased spectacularly. And the source of that growth? Increased consumer spending, coupled with and amplified by government outlays.”

Much has been written already about the record profits of both financial and non-financial corporations that have drained consumption, and that is the main reason why average real household incomes have actually declined over the past 30 years. In fact, corporate profits today are highest in history as a percentage of GDP.

Graph: Trading Economics

And this could be actually endangering economic growth by causing rampant market speculation, rather than productive investments, say many pundits, including Professor Livingston: “So corporate profits do not drive economic growth — they’re just restless sums of surplus capital, ready to flood speculative markets at home and abroad. In the 1920s, they inflated the stock market bubble, and then caused the Great Crash. Since the Reagan revolution, these superfluous profits have fed corporate mergers and takeovers, driven the dot-com craze, financed the “shadow banking” system of hedge funds and securitized investment vehicles, fueled monetary meltdowns in every hemisphere and inflated the housing bubble.”

How to cure the record income inequality that has resulted from so much power going to Wall Street and the corporations? Let us return to the income tax brackets that brought on so much prosperity to the middle class during the 1960s and 1970s. What were they?

The maximum bracket has fluctuated from 91 percent for those earning more than $400,000 in 1960, to the current low of 35 percent for those earning more than $379,150 today. And this has coincided with the astronomical increase in both household and government debt.

So it should be a no-brainer, if we want to see American growth restored to historical levels. Higher taxes have meant more growth, because public revenues are invested in growth-inducing infrastructure, better public safety, and upward mobility inducing education, for starters. Whereas lower taxes mean higher debts, with less growth and more speculative risk-taking to show for it. Why history is so easily forgotten may be a question only psychologists can answer.

Harlan Green © 2012

Dear Supercommittee: “It’s Consumer Spending, Stupid!”

Financial FAQs

“With only about a month remaining before its recommendations are due, lawmakers on the congressional supercommittee charged with finding savings from the federal budget wrestled with cuts to defense, foreign aid and other programs on Wednesday”, said Bloomberg Marketwatch.

But the historical record tells us that finding “savings” in government spending will shrink, not expand economic growth. And so finding savings that aren’t spent elsewhere on stimulus programs won’t in fact reduce the federal deficit, which depends on increased growth. So once again as Paul Krugman has said, “And those who are determined to forget the past run a high risk of reliving it — which is why we’re in the state we’re in.”

At the risk of stealing the title from a New York Times Op-ed by economic historian and Rutger’s Professor James Livingston, “It’s Consumer Spending, Stupid”, we now have historical data verifying that consumers and government spending have driven economic growth over the past century, not corporate profits. This should not be surprising given that consumer spending now makes up 70 percent of economic activity.

Professor Livingston’s apostasy is letting us in on the “best kept secret of the last century: private investment—that is, using business profits to increase productivity and ouput—doesn’t actually drive economic growth. Consumer debt and government spending actually do”.

This is blasphemy to the classical orthodoxy, needless to say, but a truth that the #OccupyWallStreet protests recognize. Livingston says, in fact “…corporate profits are…just restless sums of surplus capital, ready to flood speculative markets at home and abroad. In the 1920s, they inflated the stock market bubble, and then caused the Great Crash. Since the Reagan revolution, these superfluous profits have fed corporate mergers and takeovers, driven the dot-com craze, financed the “shadow banking” system of hedge funds and securitized investment vehicles, fueled monetary meltdowns in every hemisphere and inflated the housing bubble.”

Graph: Congressional Budget Office

This also tells why this recovery has been so frustratingly anemic. It isn’t consumer debt, as much as the lack of income that has prevented consumers from spending enough to boost economic growth. There has been almost no household income growth above inflation since the 1970s, mainly because so much wealth was siphoned off to the wealthiest via tax loopholes and less progressive tax rates, according to the latest CBO study on income inequality.

It should no longer be a surprise to anyone that the share of income going to higher-income households rose, said the CBO study, while the share going to lower-income households fell. But it’s nice that the CBO is also providing more evidence, to whit:

• The top fifth of the population saw a 10-percentage-point increase in their share of after-tax income.
• Most of that growth went to the top 1 percent of the population.
• All other groups saw their shares decline by 2 to 3 percentage points.

How do we know that it isn’t corporations reinvesting their profits that spurs growth? After all, between 1900 and 2000, real gross domestic product per capita (the output of goods and services per person) grew more than 600 percent.

We know because net business investment declined 70 percent as a share of G.D.P. over that century, says Professor Livingston. In 1900 almost all investment came from the private sector — from companies, not from government — whereas in 2000, most investment was either from government spending (out of tax revenues) or “residential investment,” which means consumer spending on housing, rather than business expenditure on plants, equipment and labor.

In other words, over the course of the last century, net business investment atrophied while G.D.P. per capita increased spectacularly. In other words, corporations decided to spend their profits elsewhere. “The architects of the Reagan revolution tried to reverse these trends as a cure for the stagflation of the 1970s, but couldn’t, said Livingston. In fact, private or business investment kept declining in the ’80s and after. Peter G. Peterson, a former commerce secretary, complained that real growth after 1982 — after President Ronald Reagan cut corporate tax rates — coincided with “by far the weakest net investment effort in our postwar history.”

So even cutting corporate taxes, the cry of conservatives today, hasn’t encouraged corporations to invest in future growth. Professor Livingston has done a great service in what may be a first—actually exploding the myth that profits drive growth. It also explodes the myth that corporations have their customers’ best interests at heart. For their customers are consumers in the main, and consumers’ incomes have not even kept up with inflation. The huge jump in labor productivity has not been shared by their employees, in other words.

On the other hand, it is the investor class that profited immensely from the myth that business investment creates jobs. Even though the historical record shows it merely bloated the financial sector from 8 percent to more than 20 percent of GDP over the past decade, which led to excessive speculation. It was excessive investments in new technology, for instance, that caused the dot-com bubble and market crash in 2000. Then came the housing bubble that resulted from overbuilding of housing, fuelled by too easy credit conditions.

“Consumer spending is not only the key to economic recovery in the short term; it’s also necessary for balanced growth in the long term,” says Professor Livingston. “If our goal is to repair our damaged economy, we should bank on consumer culture — and that entails a redistribution of income away from profits toward wages, enabled by tax policy and enforced by government spending. (The increased trade deficit that might result should not deter us, since a large portion of manufactured imports come from American-owned multinational corporations that operate overseas.)”.

We don’t need the traders and the C.E.O.’s and the analysts — the 1 percent — to collect and manage our savings. Instead, we consumers need to save less and spend more in the name of a better future. We don’t need to silence the ant, but we’d better start listening to the grasshopper, says Professor Livingston. 

So when will consumers—you and I, that is—wake up to the fact that the future is ours for the taking? 

Harlan Green © 2011