Timely post from Krugman on the relationship between debt and growth. I particularly liked this seemingly obvious but actually quite interesting take:
What I think I’m seeing, although I haven’t tested this carefully, is that the causal relationship largely runs from growth to debt rather than the other way around. That is, it’s not so much that bad things happen to growth when debt is high, it’s that bad things happen to debt when growth is low.
He references two Carmen Reinhart papers in this post. I don't have the time, energy or, quite frankly, ability to read many academic economic papers, but I've read and listened to numerous interviews with Reinhart and she is defintely one of the go to people when it comes to debt and growth.
Showing posts with label GDP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GDP. Show all posts
GDP and The Descendents of Keynes
Veronique de Rugy cuts through the nonsense of the recent GDP numbers. A snippet:
the way the GDP accounts for government spending is totally biased: It assumes that if the government is spending $200,000 on a contractor to repave a road in the middle of nowhere that it will create $200,000 of genuine economic value. By contrast, GDP measures are tougher on private-sector spending. As my George Mason university colleague Garett Jones explained to me recently “So if Exxon Mobil pays an engineer $200,000 per year, that only shows up in GDP if the engineer finds an extra $200,000 of oil to sell, or builds a new machine that sells for $200,000, something like that. So our GDP measures of “government spending” are awful–and when the government is in a race to spend money as quickly as possible, these measures are going to be even worse than usual.”
Mario Rizzo does an even better job examining the whole of the White House's and Congress' spending strategies. His concluding paragraph:
In sum, at least 2.5 percentage points of the 3.5 percent increase are suspect on their own terms. And then there are the future costs to bear. As long as the stimulus-spending persists the “stuff index” (GDP) will look okay. And as long as the costs are hidden either in the future or in some other way, the politics will look fine for the stimulators.
Keynesian types want to spend as much as quickly as possible because they believe Depression 2.0 will arrive if we don't. Supply siders want the market to reallocate resources on its own to achieve equilibrium. The Keynesian argument is markets are driven by fear and greed, as Rob has pointed out a few times, and will spiral into oblivion without proper government intervention. The consequences of spending nor the creation of value/utility related to said spending do not matter to the Keynesian (though he may claim they do). Supply siders believe a reallocation would be long, tough and painful for many, but ultimately more appropriate and healthier than attempting to manipulate the economy on a grand scale.
GDP is a wonderful tool for the neo-Keynesian to frame and promote his story. But when you seperate the recipe from the final product, I don't think there is a whole lot to trust or like.
the way the GDP accounts for government spending is totally biased: It assumes that if the government is spending $200,000 on a contractor to repave a road in the middle of nowhere that it will create $200,000 of genuine economic value. By contrast, GDP measures are tougher on private-sector spending. As my George Mason university colleague Garett Jones explained to me recently “So if Exxon Mobil pays an engineer $200,000 per year, that only shows up in GDP if the engineer finds an extra $200,000 of oil to sell, or builds a new machine that sells for $200,000, something like that. So our GDP measures of “government spending” are awful–and when the government is in a race to spend money as quickly as possible, these measures are going to be even worse than usual.”
Mario Rizzo does an even better job examining the whole of the White House's and Congress' spending strategies. His concluding paragraph:
In sum, at least 2.5 percentage points of the 3.5 percent increase are suspect on their own terms. And then there are the future costs to bear. As long as the stimulus-spending persists the “stuff index” (GDP) will look okay. And as long as the costs are hidden either in the future or in some other way, the politics will look fine for the stimulators.
Keynesian types want to spend as much as quickly as possible because they believe Depression 2.0 will arrive if we don't. Supply siders want the market to reallocate resources on its own to achieve equilibrium. The Keynesian argument is markets are driven by fear and greed, as Rob has pointed out a few times, and will spiral into oblivion without proper government intervention. The consequences of spending nor the creation of value/utility related to said spending do not matter to the Keynesian (though he may claim they do). Supply siders believe a reallocation would be long, tough and painful for many, but ultimately more appropriate and healthier than attempting to manipulate the economy on a grand scale.
GDP is a wonderful tool for the neo-Keynesian to frame and promote his story. But when you seperate the recipe from the final product, I don't think there is a whole lot to trust or like.
GDP Shortcomings
Via MR, Michael Mandel's article this week in BusinessWeek is a must read. The opening paragraphs:
the official [GDP] statistics are not designed to pick up cutbacks in "intangible investments" such as business spending on research and development, product design, and worker training. There's ample evidence to suggest that companies, to reduce costs and boost short-term profits, are slashing this kind of spending, which is essential for innovation. Without investment in intangibles, the U.S. can't compete in a knowledge-based global economy. Yet you won't see that plunge reflected in the GDP and productivity statistics, which are still too focused on more traditional sectors, such as motor vehicles and construction.
In effect, government statisticians are trying to track a 21st century bust with 20th century tools. Not only is that distorting the critical data that investors, policymakers, and corporate executives use to evaluate the economy, but it might also be creating a false sense of relief as Americans battle a brutal recession.
If increasing GDP is the ultimate goal, but measuring the ultimate goal is structurally flawed, how are policy makers expected to accomplish the ultimate goal in a beneficial and efficient manner?
More on the current state of macro in a bit.
the official [GDP] statistics are not designed to pick up cutbacks in "intangible investments" such as business spending on research and development, product design, and worker training. There's ample evidence to suggest that companies, to reduce costs and boost short-term profits, are slashing this kind of spending, which is essential for innovation. Without investment in intangibles, the U.S. can't compete in a knowledge-based global economy. Yet you won't see that plunge reflected in the GDP and productivity statistics, which are still too focused on more traditional sectors, such as motor vehicles and construction.
In effect, government statisticians are trying to track a 21st century bust with 20th century tools. Not only is that distorting the critical data that investors, policymakers, and corporate executives use to evaluate the economy, but it might also be creating a false sense of relief as Americans battle a brutal recession.
If increasing GDP is the ultimate goal, but measuring the ultimate goal is structurally flawed, how are policy makers expected to accomplish the ultimate goal in a beneficial and efficient manner?
More on the current state of macro in a bit.
I Still Don't "Get" It
Caroline Baum of Bloomberg summarizes my ideas of stimulus and government spending far better than I have. She also touches on the morality/consitutionality of this issue, something I hope to weigh in on tonight or later in the week.
Again, maybe I'm just an ignorant layman, but the arguments of Romer, Krugman and other neo-Keynesians strike me as ivory tower, academic economist-in-a-bubble wishful thinking. I'm very open-minded though, so I really want to try and "get" these arguments.
I'm trying to get at the heart of the matter, but every time I think I do, a new layer emerges. So here is where I stand now. The point of stimulus is to keep GDP and employment numbers up. And based on the way economists measure these aspects of the economy, they should go up.
Two problems. The first, as I've alluded to before, is methodology. If economists setup the model GDP = C + I + G + (X - M) and it is accepted as legitimate (whether it actually is legitimate as a measurement is a whole other matter), to counteract the fall in C and I is most easily done by increasing G. So this is done. Then economists measure it, and presto!, GDP is as it was before and G has saved the day. But this is asinine. It's like saying if my income falls dramatically I can just borrow and spend until I'm back on my feet. This isn't how the real world works.
Secondly, and more importantly, and accepting the whole spending/GDP argument to begin with (which I don't), so what? In other words, what are the real effects? What real value is being created? What is the opportunity cost of taking this money out of the private sector? What will the future costs of borrowing be?
The crux of my stance: A "job" is an action (not a thing) one private party pays another private party to perform with that party's own money because they deem the end result of that job more valuable than the price (wage) they are paying for it. When the paying party no longer feels the product of the labor is worth the wage, then the job no longer exists.
A job is not money coercively taken from some (private actors) by another (government) then paid to others (special interests) to perform arbritary tasks government deems worth paying said special interests to perform. This is not valuable. This is not productive. It is only legalized thievery and the redistribution of wealth under the subtle guise of "stimulus" and "helping the common man".
As Milton Friedman said, nobody spends money as wisely as the owner of that money when they spend it on themselves.
Rob, tell me where I'm wrong because I'm sure I'm missing something or am misrepresenting something.
Again, maybe I'm just an ignorant layman, but the arguments of Romer, Krugman and other neo-Keynesians strike me as ivory tower, academic economist-in-a-bubble wishful thinking. I'm very open-minded though, so I really want to try and "get" these arguments.
I'm trying to get at the heart of the matter, but every time I think I do, a new layer emerges. So here is where I stand now. The point of stimulus is to keep GDP and employment numbers up. And based on the way economists measure these aspects of the economy, they should go up.
Two problems. The first, as I've alluded to before, is methodology. If economists setup the model GDP = C + I + G + (X - M) and it is accepted as legitimate (whether it actually is legitimate as a measurement is a whole other matter), to counteract the fall in C and I is most easily done by increasing G. So this is done. Then economists measure it, and presto!, GDP is as it was before and G has saved the day. But this is asinine. It's like saying if my income falls dramatically I can just borrow and spend until I'm back on my feet. This isn't how the real world works.
Secondly, and more importantly, and accepting the whole spending/GDP argument to begin with (which I don't), so what? In other words, what are the real effects? What real value is being created? What is the opportunity cost of taking this money out of the private sector? What will the future costs of borrowing be?
The crux of my stance: A "job" is an action (not a thing) one private party pays another private party to perform with that party's own money because they deem the end result of that job more valuable than the price (wage) they are paying for it. When the paying party no longer feels the product of the labor is worth the wage, then the job no longer exists.
A job is not money coercively taken from some (private actors) by another (government) then paid to others (special interests) to perform arbritary tasks government deems worth paying said special interests to perform. This is not valuable. This is not productive. It is only legalized thievery and the redistribution of wealth under the subtle guise of "stimulus" and "helping the common man".
As Milton Friedman said, nobody spends money as wisely as the owner of that money when they spend it on themselves.
Rob, tell me where I'm wrong because I'm sure I'm missing something or am misrepresenting something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
