You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new www.NationofChange.org.
Friday, November 28, 2014 / PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM FOR POSITIVE ACTION
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

Jeffrey Frankel
Published: Saturday 18 February 2012
“When the government spends $800 billion on such things as highway construction, salaries for teachers and policemen who were about to be laid off, and so on, it has an effect.”

Obama’s Recovery?

Article image

With November’s election in the United States fast approaching, the Republican candidates seeking to challenge President Barack Obama claim that his policies have done nothing to support recovery from the recession that he inherited in January 2009. If anything, they claim, his fiscal stimulus, the bank bailouts, and US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s aggressive monetary policy made matters worse.

Obama’s Democratic defenders counter that his policies staved off a second Great Depression, and that the US economy has been steadily working its way out of a deep hole ever since. Middle-ground observers, meanwhile, typically conclude that one cannot settle the debate, because one cannot know what would have happened otherwise.

There is a good case to be made that government policies – while not strong enough to return the economy rapidly to health – did halt an accelerating economic decline. But the middle-ground observers are right that one cannot prove what would have happened otherwise. It is also true that it is rare for a government’s policies to have a major impact on the economy immediately.

But here is the remarkable thing: whether one listens to the Republicans, the Democrats, or the middle-ground observers, one gets the impression that economic statistics show no discernible improvement around the time that Obama took office. In fact, the reality could hardly be more different.

This is especially true if one looks at revised data, which show the US economy to have been in far worse shape in January 2009 than was reported at the time. In January 2009, the annualized growth rate in the second half of 2008 was officially estimated to have been -2.2%; but current figures reveal the contraction to have been much sharper – a horrendous -6.3%. This is the main reason why economic activity in 2009 and 2010 was so much lower than had been forecast – and why unemployment was so much higher.

"Follow Project Syndicate on Facebook or Twitter. For more from Jeffrey Frankel, click here."

The maximum rate of economic contraction – a veritable freefall – came in the last quarter of 2008. More specifically, according to the monthly GDP estimates from the highly respected forecaster Macroeconomic Advisers, it came in December – the month before Obama was inaugurated. As the graphs below plainly show, the growth trajectory miraculously reversed as soon as Obama’s term began, yielding a clear “V” pattern in 2008-09.

The full force of the fiscal stimulus package began to go into effect in the second quarter of 2009, with the US National Bureau of Economic Research officially designating the end of the recession as having come in June of that year. Real GDP growth turned positive in the third quarter, but slowed again in late 2010 and early 2011, which coincides with the beginning of the withdrawal of the Obama administration’s fiscal stimulus.

Other economic indicators, such as interest-rate spreads and the rate of job loss, also turned around in early 2009. Labor-market recovery normally lags behind that of GDP – hence the “jobless recoveries” of recent decades. But official data on monthly job losses and gains reveal an obvious V-shape here, too: as the graph below shows, the end of the free-fall for private-sector employment came precisely when Obama was inaugurated.

Again, such data do not demonstrate that Obama’s policies yielded an immediate payoff. In addition to the lags in policies’ effects, many other factors influence the economy every month, making it difficult to disentangle the true causes underlying particular outcomes.

Given that difficulty, the right way to assess whether the fiscal stimulus enacted in January 2009 had a positive impact is to start with common sense. When the government spends $800 billion on such things as highway construction, salaries for teachers and policemen who were about to be laid off, and so on, it has an effect. Workers who otherwise would not have a job now have one, and may spend some of their income on goods and services produced by other people, creating a multiplier effect.

Those who claim that this spending does not boost income and employment (or that it causes harm) apparently believe that as soon as a teacher is laid off, a new job is created somewhere else in the economy, or even that the same teacher finds a new job right away. Neither can be true, not with unemployment so high and the average spell of unemployment much longer than usual.

They also believe that the government deficit drives up inflation and interest rates, thereby crowding out other spending by consumers and firms. But interest rates are at rock-bottom levels – even lower than in January 2009 – while core inflation has slowed to a pace unseen since the early 1960’s. The conditions of the last four years – high unemployment, depressed output, low inflation, and low interest rates – are precisely those for which traditional “Keynesian” remedies were designed.

Economists’ more sophisticated forecasting models also show that the fiscal stimulus had an important positive effect, for much the same reasons as the common-sense approach. The non-partisan US Congressional Budget Office reports that the 2009 spending increase and tax cuts gave a positive boost to the economy, and indeed had the extra multiplier effects predicted by traditional Keynesian models. Allowing for a wide range of uncertainty, the CBO estimates that the stimulus added 1.5-3.5% to GDP by the fourth quarter, relative to where it otherwise would have been. The boost to 2010 GDP, when the peak effect of the stimulus kicked in, was roughly twice as great.

Of course, econometric models do not much interest most of the public. A turnaround needs to be visible to the naked eye to impress voters. Given this, one can only wonder why basic charts, such as the 2008-2009 “V” shape in growth and employment, have not been used – and reused – to make the case.



Productivity is not a linear

Productivity is not a linear thinking model. Symmetry is, veritably, ignored in the context that Gregory Bateson indicates. Broad strokes end up being stroking. On another plateau, it is likely the planet is going into an irreversible extinction wiping out 80% of agriculture for 100,000 years beginning in about 30 years (James Lovelock, Micheal Mann, not ignoring R. L. Mills' GUTCP). Then, there is war, which is just murder, or organized crime. Filling in these shoes, one completely ignores Indira Singh, now missing, and/or the Valerie Plame incident, to which B Obama is just another Dick Cheney arse licker. They just seem to come out of the woodwork.

The GOP has done every.

The GOP has done every. thing. in. its. power. to make null and void ANY progress made by the Obama administration. Isn't it wonderful that the American public - WE, the People, actually see the progress that has been made, and WE have seen the GOP attempts to halt any semblance of progress. Just remember these things, America - we have an election in November. And it is a VERY. IMPORTANT. ELECTION! Work FOR the Democratic candidates - actually participate in the election.

Spoken like the true cartoon

Spoken like the true cartoon character you are, Boris.

I agree with this analysis.

I agree with this analysis. I find it amusing when his critics say that, 4 years on, we can no longer blame the economic collapse on the 8 years of GWB, as if time erases the facts. Equally amusing are those who criticize the auto industry bailout which has saved many tens of thousands of direct industry jobs plus an equal number of jobs that depend on the industry, and of course the entire state of Michigan. Not to mention the first emergency tranche of federal funds was issued in the waning days of the Bush administration. I think what makes Republicans angry is the reality that the rescue did in fact work. To my mind they have demonstrated a preference that the country fail, over an Obama success. One more thing. I would imagine that the Republican party, as a group, is much more heavily invested in the stock and bond markets than the membership of the Democratic Party is. I don't hear anyone complaining about the recovery of those markets.

People must realize that we

People must realize that we are recovering from 8 yrs of GWK and his phoney wars and the lost of trillions of dollars for phone wars and billions if nont a trillion dollars oming bcck to Halliburton, KBR, and to "security" non military, off the record who can get away with toture and murder at the taxpayers expense. He plunged us into a debt that he knew Ccngress would
not pass the President bills, and create their own. Where the paramacuetcal companies would make millions, whill huge kickbacks to the men, or
women who make the votes in congress.

I wonder why GWB doesn,t

I wonder why GWB doesn,t appear to support the Repulican party , or any candidate, did daddy say," Sut up and go to our room where you can look at your private library and stay within the lines, and your care provider knows not to give you any pretzles."

Boris Badenov's picture

Growth sometimes is not a

Growth sometimes is not a good thing.
Self-Reliance is more important than the slavery that Politicians wish we adhere to.

Comment with your Facebook account



Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...