Category: Economic Crisis

Harvard Economists Find that Spending Cuts Lead to Expansions and Tax Increases Lead to Recessions

(p. A19) Economic history shows that even large adjustments in fiscal policy, if based on well-targeted spending cuts, have often led to expansions, not recessions. Fiscal adjustments based on higher taxes, on the other hand, have generally been recessionary.

My colleague Silvia Ardagna and I recently co-authored a paper examining this pattern, as have many studies over the past 20 years. Our paper looks at the 107 large fiscal adjustments–defined as a cyclically adjusted deficit reduction of at least 1.5% in one year–that took place in 21 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries between 1970 and 2007.
. . .
Our results were striking: Over nearly 40 years, expansionary adjustments were based mostly on spending cuts, while recessionary adjustments were based mostly on tax increases. And these results would have been even stronger had our definition of an expansionary period been more lenient (extending, for example, to the top 50% of the OECD). In addition, adjustments based on spending cuts were accompanied by longer-lasting reductions in ratios of debt to GDP.
. . .
The evidence from the last 40 years suggests that spending increases meant to stimulate the economy and tax increases meant to reduce deficits are unlikely to achieve their goals. The opposite combination might.

For the full commentary, see:
ALBERTO ALESINA. “Tax Cuts vs. ‘Stimulus’: The Evidence Is In; A review of over 200 fiscal adjustments in 21 countries shows that spending discipline and tax cuts are the best ways to spur economic growth.” The Wall Street Journal (Weds., November 23, 2010): A19.
(Note: ellipses added.)

A version of the Alesina and Ardagna paper that is downloadable online is:

Alesina, Alberto, and Silvia Ardagna. “Large Changes in Fiscal Policy: Taxes Versus Spending.” 2009.

The published version of the Alesina and Ardagna paper is:
Alesina, Alberto, and Silvia Ardagna. “Large Changes in Fiscal Policy: Taxes Versus Spending.” In Tax Policy and the Economy, edited by Jeffrey R. Brown. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2010, pp. 35-68.

If the Feds Want an Effective Stimulus, They Should Spend to Reduce the Patent Backlog

In my seminar on the Economics of Technology on Tuesday night (11/30/10), Gauri presented some interesting information on intellectual property. At one point she summarized that the lag in processing patents is about three years, but it takes, on average, only about 18 hours to process a patent once the processing has begun.
Later in the seminar, we talked about a brief article by Amar Bhidé on whether large economic stimulus programs have worked in the past, and will work in the present. Bhidé was skeptical, and I am too.
But it occurred to me that one modest economic stimulus expenditure might help. Why not make the highest stimulus spending priority to hire and train enough patent examiners to reduce the patent lag from three years to, say, three weeks?

The Bhidé article mentioned above is:
Bhidé, Amar. “Don’t Believe the Stimulus Scaremongers.” Wall Street Journal, (Tues., February 17, 2009): A15.

“Small-Business Marketplace at a Standstill”

WetzelDavidHardware2010-10-23.jpg“David Wetzel tried for two years to sell his New Jersey hardware store.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. B1) Small-business owners banking on a big payoff when they sell their establishments may have to settle for a lot less than planned.

A combination of tight credit, skittish buyers and business owners unwilling to sell at rock-bottom prices–factors similarly affecting home sellers–has left the small-business marketplace at a standstill.
. . .

(p. B4) “Owners still think their businesses are worth what they used to be,” says Thomas Coffey, a partner in Malvern, Pa., with B2BCFO, a provider of outsourced chief financial officers to small businesses. In reality, many “small companies just aren’t earning what they used to earn,” he says.

For the full story, see:
SARAH E. NEEDLEMAN. “Businesses Put Up for Sale Smack Into Harsh Reality.” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., OCTOBER 14, 2010): B1 & B4.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

Home Depot Co-Founder Asks Obama to Stop Blocking Startups

Below I quote from the comments that Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone addressed to President Obama:

(p. A21) A little more than 30 years ago, Bernie Marcus, Arthur Blank, Pat Farrah and I got together and founded The Home Depot. Our dream was to create (memo to DNC activists: that’s build, not take or coerce) a new kind of home-improvement center catering to do-it-yourselfers. The concept was to have a wide assortment, a high level of service, and the lowest pricing possible.

We opened the front door in 1979, also a time of severe economic slowdown. Yet today, Home Depot is staffed by more than 325,000 dedicated, well-trained, and highly motivated people offering outstanding service and knowledge to millions of consumers.
If we tried to start Home Depot today, under the kind of onerous regulatory controls that you have advocated, it’s a stone cold certainty that our business would never get off the ground, much less thrive. Rules against providing stock options would have prevented us from incentivizing worthy employees in the start-up phase–never mind the incredibly high cost of regulatory compliance overall and mandatory health insurance. Still worse are the ever-rapacious trial lawyers.
Meantime, you seem obsessed with repealing tax cuts for “millionaires and billionaires.” Contrary to what you might assume, I didn’t start with any advantages and neither did most of the successful people I know. I am the grandson of immigrants who came to this country seeking basic economic and personal liberty. My parents worked tirelessly to build on that opportunity. My first job was as a day laborer on the construction of the Long Island Expressway more than 50 years ago. The wealth that was created by my investments wasn’t put into a giant swimming pool as so many elected demagogues seem to imagine. Instead it benefitted our employees, their families and our community at large.

For the full commentary, see:
KEN LANGONE. “Stop Bashing Business, Mr. President; If we tried to start The Home Depot today, it’s a stone cold certainty that it would never have gotten off the ground.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., OCTOBER 15, 2010): A21.

Stimulus Money Sent to the Jailed and the Dead

(p. A8) The Social Security Administration sent about 89,000 stimulus payments of $250 each to dead and incarcerated people–but almost half of them were returned, a new inspector-general’s report found.
. . .
. . . 17,000 payments went to recipients who were in prison at the time the payment was made in May 2009. However, not all of those payments were necessarily against the letter of the law. While lawmakers intended to prevent payments to people in prison, the law included only a provision prohibiting payments to people incarcerated in the three months before the plan was passed–from November 2008 through January 2009.
. . .
. . . : The SSA says that the stimulus package didn’t include a provision allowing it to try to retrieve funds that were mistakenly sent out, so it can’t try to retrieve the rest of the money. Money transferred electronically may be sitting untouched in bank accounts of dead people.
The combined total of the mistaken payments is $22.3 million. About $12 million hasn’t been returned.

For the full story, see:

LOUISE RADNOFSKY. “Stimulus Checks Sent to Dead, Incarcerated.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., OCTOBER 8, 2010): A8.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the article was dated OCTOBER 7, 2010.)

Myron Scholes on Sticking to His Ideas, Losing $4 Billion in Four Months, and Rejecting Taleb’s Advice

ScholesMyron2010-08-29.jpg

Myron Scholes. Source of photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. 22) The writer Nassim Nicholas Taleb contends that instead of giving advice on managing risk, you “should be in a retirement home doing sudoku.”
If someone says to you, “Go to an old-folks’ home,” that’s kind of ridiculous, because a lot of old people are doing terrific things for society. I never tried sudoku. Maybe he spends his time doing sudoku.

Some economists believe that mathematical models like yours lulled banks into a false sense of security, and I am wondering if you have revised your ideas as a consequence.
I haven’t changed my ideas. A bank needs models to measure risk. The problem, however, is that any one bank can measure its risk, but it also has to know what the risk taken by other banks in the system happens to be at any particular moment.
. . .
After leaving academia, you helped found Long-Term Capital Management, a hedge fund that lost $4 billion in four months and became a symbol of ’90s-style financial failure. .
Obviously, you prefer not to have lost money for investors.

For the full interview, see:
DEBORAH SOLOMON. “Questions for Myron Scholes; Crash Course.” The New York Times, Magazine Section (Sun., May 17, 2009): 22.
(Note: ellipsis added; bold in original versions, to indicate questions by Deborah Solomon.)
(Note: the online version of the article is dated May 14, 2009.)

FDR’s Taxes Deepened the Great Depression

Professor Ohanian is a UCLA economist well-known for his research on the Great Depression. Below I quote a few of his recent observations (with co-author Cooley):

(p. A17) In 1937, after several years of partial recovery from the Great Depression, the U.S. economy fell into a sharp recession. The episode has become a lightning rod in the ongoing debate about whether the economy needs further increases in government spending to keep employment from declining even more.
. . .
The economy did not tank in 1937 because government spending declined. Increases in tax rates, particularly capital income tax rates, and the expansion of unions, were most likely responsible. Unfortunately, these same factors pose a similar threat today.
. . .
. . . in 1936, the Roosevelt administration pushed through a tax on corporate profits that were not distributed to shareholders. The sliding scale tax began at 7% if a company retained 1% of its net income, and went to 27% if a company retained 70% of net income. This tax significantly raised the cost of investment, as most investment is financed with a corporation’s own retained earnings.
The tax rate on dividends also rose to 15.98% in 1932 from 10.14% in 1929, and then doubled again by 1936. Research conducted last year by Ellen McGratten of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis suggests that these increases in capital income taxation can account for much of the 26% decline in business fixed investment that occurred in 1937-1938.

For the full commentary, see:
THOMAS F. COOLEY AND LEE E. OHANIAN. “Gates and Buffett Take the Pledge; Wealthy businessmen often feel obligated to ‘give back.’ Who says they’ve taken anything?” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., AUGUST 20, 2010): A15.
(Note: ellipses added.)

That McGratten paper is:
McGrattan, Ellen R. “Capital Taxation During the U.S. Great Depression.” Working Paper 670, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, April 2009.

Tax Hike Would Hurt Entrepreneurs

(p. A17) When Congress returns from its summer recess, members will face a pivotal decision about the expiring Bush tax cuts. President Barack Obama has called for their permanent extension for singles with incomes below $200,000 and married couples with incomes below $250,000, but has proposed that most of the tax cuts for households with higher incomes be allowed to expire.
. . .
The fact that there are millions of people in the lower tax brackets with small amounts of business income may be interesting for some purposes, but it is irrelevant for the assessment of the economic impact of the tax hikes.
The numbers are clear. According to IRS data, fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007.
. . .
Economic research supports a large impact. A pair of papers by economists Robert Carroll, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Harvey Rosen and Mark Rider that were published in 1998 and 2000 by the National Bureau of Economic Research analyzed tax return data and uncovered high responsiveness of sole proprietors’ business activity to tax rates. Their estimates imply that increasing the top rate to 40.8% from 35% (an official rate of 39.6% plus another 1.2 percentage points from the restoration of a stealth provision that phases out deductions), as in Mr. Obama’s plan, would reduce gross receipts by more than 7% for sole proprietors subject to the higher rate.
These results imply a similar effect on proprietors’ investment expenditures. A paper published by R. Glenn Hubbard of Columbia University and William M. Gentry of Williams College in the American Economic Review in 2000 also found that increasing progressivity of the tax code discourages entrepreneurs from starting new businesses.

For the full commentary, see:
KEVIN A. HASSETT and ALAN D. VIARD. “The Small Business Tax Hike and the 97% Fallacy; The president’s plan to raise top marginal rates is holding back the very people who should be leading the economic recovery.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., SEPTEMBER 3, 2010): A17.
(Note: ellipses added.)

One of the papers by Carroll et al, is:
Carroll, Robert, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Mark Rider, and Harvey S. Rosen. “Income Taxes and Entrepreneurs’ Use of Labor.” Journal of Labor Economics 18, no. 2 (April 2000): 324-51.

The Hubbard paper is:
Gentry, William M., and R. Glenn Hubbard. “Tax Policy and Entrepreneurial Entry.” The American Economic Review 90, no. 2 (May 2000): 283-87.

Post-War Freedom, Not FDR’s New Deal or War, Ended Great Depression

(p. A17) Roosevelt died before the war ended and before he could implement his New Deal revival. His successor, Harry Truman, in a 16,000 word message on Sept. 6, 1945, urged Congress to enact FDR’s ideas as the best way to achieve full employment after the war.

Congress–both chambers with Democratic majorities–responded by just saying “no.” No to the whole New Deal revival: no federal program for health care, no full-employment act, only limited federal housing, and no increase in minimum wage or Social Security benefits.
Instead, Congress reduced taxes. Income tax rates were cut across the board. FDR’s top marginal rate, 94% on all income over $200,000, was cut to 86.45%. The lowest rate was cut to 19% from 23%, and with a change in the amount of income exempt from taxation an estimated 12 million Americans were eliminated from the tax rolls entirely.
. . .
Congress substituted the tonic of freedom for FDR’s New Deal revival and the American economy recovered well. Unemployment, which had been in double digits throughout the 1930s, was only 3.9% in 1946 and, except for a couple of short recessions, remained in that range for the next decade.
The Great Depression was over, no thanks to FDR. Yet the myth of his New Deal lives on. With the current effort by President Obama to emulate some of FDR’s programs to get us out of the recent deep recession, this myth should be laid to rest.

For the full commentary, see:
BURTON FOLSOM JR. AND ANITA FOLSOM. “Did FDR End the Depression?
The economy took off after the postwar Congress cut taxes.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., APRIL 12, 2010): A17.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

“Disrespectful to Take Money from One Man’s Pocket and Put It in Another’s”

WestsideCommunityCenterColoradoSprings2010-08-30.jpg“A March fair to raise private funding for community centers, held at Westside Community Center, was sparsely attended.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A1) COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo.–Like many American cities, this one is strapped for cash. Tax collections here have fallen so far that the city has turned off one-third of its 24,512 street lights.

But unlike many cities, this one is full of people who are eager for more government cutbacks.
The town council has been bombarded with emails telling it to close community centers. Letters to the local newspaper call for shrinking the police department and putting the city-owned utility up for sale. A commission is studying whether to sell the municipal hospital. Another, made up of local businessmen, will opine on whether to slash the salaries and benefits of city employees.
“Let’s start cutting stupid programs that cost taxpayers a pot of money,” says Tim Austin, a 48-year-old former home builder now looking for a new line of work. “It’s so bullying and disrespectful to take money from one man’s pocket and put it in another’s.”

For the full story, see:

LESLIE EATON. “Strapped City Cuts and Cuts and Cuts.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., APRIL 13, 2010): A1 & A16.

Employment Further Below Trend than Any Time in Half Century

EmploymentRelativeToJobGrowthTrendGraph2010-08-05.gif

Source of graph: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A15) The number of nonfarm private jobs has been growing steadily since the 1950s. That number reached a peak at the end of 2007. Between 1958 and 2007, the number of U.S. jobs grew to 115.4 million from 43.5 million–about 2% per year on average. The steady upward trend reflects the long-run growth of the economy and increased participation in the labor force.

The nearby chart compares employment and that trend. It shows the percentage difference between employment and the trend line generated from monthly employment figures over the past 50 years (July 1960 through June 2010).
What we see is astounding. For almost 25 years–between 1984 and late 2008–the level of employment never fell to more than 3% below the trend line. Over that period, total employment grew by more than 36 million.
Employment fell briefly to about 6% below the trend during two previous recessions: in 1975 and again in 1982-1983. During those periods, the unemployment-rate peaks were 9% (in 1974) and 10.8% (in 1982). The unemployment rate in 2009 peaked at 10.1%.
By 2010, however, employment had fallen to about 10% below the trend, far below any previous level in the last half-century.

For the full commentary, see:
PAUL GODEK. “Jobless Numbers Are Worse Than You Think; The situation is much more dire now than it was during the 1980s.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., JULY 23, 2010): A15.