Did the “Good Obama” Step Forward in the Jobs Speech?

So one would think after reading the opinions of party elders canvassed by the New York Times this morning.  It’s as though he has Harry Truman perched on one shoulder and Jimmy Carter on the other, and it was the Truman side that drafted his latest speech.

If only he keeps listening to the Truman avatar and eschews the other, wimpy one, say the elders, he has a chance to get reelected.

But recall this vaunted jobs program: it is too small by a factor four or five to close the demand gap, it relies more on tax cuts than spending, and it falls far short of stopping the loss of state and local public jobs.  Even its strongest supporters admit that it would be too little, too late to reverse the Great Recession if the Republicans allowed it to pass. Obama’s fighting side is apparently pretty soft too.

The silver lining in all of this is that Jimmy Carter has turned out to be a fantastic ex-president.

Political Economy and Financialization

This post is an attempt to explain in a little more detail what I have been saying (for instance, here and here) about the political economy of the Great Recession and its perverse response.  Of course, that would suggest an article or even a book, but who has time for that?  So a blog post will have to do.

Romney on Free Trade and the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program

The Trade Policy section of Mitt Romney’s Believe in America argues that:

Open markets have helped make America powerful and prosperous. Indeed, they have been one of the keys to our economic success since the country was founded … Every president beginning with Ronald Reagan has recognized this and acted upon it. President Reagan signed America’s first Free Trade Agreement (FTA), with Israel in 1985. George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton both worked to negotiate and implement the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which went into effect in 1994. George W. Bush successfully negotiated eleven FTAs, encompassing sixteen countries … Of course, opening markets must be a two-way street. For America truly to benefit in global commerce, we need to ensure there is access for our entrepreneurs to sell their high-quality products and services. This means that agreements must protect intellectual property from those who would violate the rules of free enterprise. Too often, trade agreements do not adequately address these concerns. Even when they do, actual enforcement lags.

Romney then accuses President Obama of stalling to put forth Free Trade Agreements with 3 nations. Let’s step back from his rhetoric to correct the record on several matters. President Reagan’s track record on free trade was not as great as Mr. Romney pretends. Neither was the free trade track record of George W. Bush.

As far as the delays in putting forth the most recent Free Trade Agreements, Ron Kirk notes:

We have also been insisting that Congress include the other element of our trade package – the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which is a safety net for workers who, through no fault of their own, may be displaced from their jobs [because of increased imports]. Congress allowed that program to expire in February, and we've been working with them on a way to get it renewed. Democrats would prefer to move on the Trade Adjustment Assistance program first. The Republicans have insisted that we move on the [free trade agreements] first and do Trade Adjustment Assistance later. We've been trying to find a way to move everything forward at the same time. That's been the holdup.

Mr. Romney notes that this may be the holdup but then criticizes the program as if it were some sort of government dole to labor unions. Protection for corporations (they are people too) but not for workers – go figure!

But let’s recall that it was President Kennedy that first proposed this program as part of the “Kennedy Round”, which proposed to sharply curtail tariffs. When Mr. Romney claims that the White House recognized the benefits of open markets in the 1980’s, he was only off by 20 years.

Believe in America Is Not Going to Create 11 Million New Jobs by 2016

Did I really hear Mitt Romney say his economic plan will create 11 million new jobs in 4 years and witness 4 percent growth per year during this period? This story confirms as much:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney announced his agenda for job creation Tuesday with a bold goal at its core: 11 million new jobs during the first four years of a Romney administration ... Specifically, Romney sketched his vision that the economy would grow at 4 percent a year under his watch, if elected in 2012. That would be significantly faster growth than the 3.6 percent pace predicted recently by the Congressional Budget Office for the years 2013 to 2016 (essentially the years of the next presidential term). And many economists say that even 3.6 percent growth may be an optimistic forecast.

This may sound very ambitious to some but even if the U.S. economy witnessed this type of GDP and employment rebound, we would still be far from full employment. During each of Clinton’s two years in the White House, we saw employment grow by more than 9 million per term as real GDP growth did average about 3.6 percent per year. When Clinton became President, the employment to population ratio was 61.4 percent. It is only 58.2 percent now. Romney’s goal seems to be to get this back to around 61 percent by the end of 2016. Not exactly believing in America!

Here is the plan. Besides a lot of Obama bashing, it has the usual GOP talking points about balancing the budget as we cuts taxes, regulations, and trade barriers. Glenn Hubbard wrote the Forward, which includes this:

America needs to get its growth groove back. And getting it back is about not just incomes, but jobs as well. To bring the unemployment rate back to its pre-financial-crisis level by the end of the next president’s first term would require real GDP growth averaging 4 percent per year over that period. That is an aggressive goal, but great progress can be made.

Growth groove? Of course, he notes that the 4 percent is an “aggressive goal” without predicting that any of these 59 proposals will actually achieve this goal.

Gold and Oil

Paul Krugman has a post on gold prices.  The basic idea is that if you have Hotelling pricing of gold (price rising at the rate of interest so that it reaches a backstop level at the moment the existing supply is exhausted), a fall in interest rates implies a higher initial price (initial effect) and a flatter price path (subsequent effect).  Since interest rates are in fact falling, the expectation is that gold prices should rise in the current period but remain a lousy investment for the future, since the downside potential for interest rates is itself being depleted.  One would have to flesh out this model with some parameters to see how well it performs for gold, but what about other commodities?  In particular, what about oil?

The Shrinking Public Sector

Matt Yglesias makes an important observation about the dismal recent labor market statistics:

Looks like we had 17,000 thousand new private sector jobs in August, which were 100 percent offset by 17,000 lost jobs in the public sector. The striking zero result should galvanize minds, but it’s worth noting that this has been the trend all year. The public sector has been steadily shrinking. According to the conservative theory of the economy, when the public sector shrinks that should super-charge the private sector. What’s happened in the real world has been that public sector shrinkage has simply been paired with anemic private sector growth.

Our graph shows total government employment since January 2007 as well as employment by state and local governments over the same period. Total government employment has actually been declining since the month Barack Obama became President. While Federal employment has risen very slightly on net during this period (it too has been falling of late), employment by state and local governments has declined by 650,000 over this same period. As far as the conservative theory that Matt alludes to, alas private employment has not risen to offset this Herbert Hoover fiscal policy.

The Free Market: Looting, Shooting, and Polluting

I uploaded a Youtube post. I used up my time before I was able to pull everything together. Here is the url:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuznKDUbemw

Schäuble: Bankrupt

Amazing.  Schäuble’s opinion piece in the FT is titled “Why austerity is only cure for the eurozone”, and his argument is

Piling on more debt now will stunt rather than stimulate growth in the long run. Governments in and beyond the eurozone need not just to commit to fiscal consolidation and improved competitiveness – they need to start delivering on these now.

and

There is some concern that fiscal consolidation, a smaller public sector and more flexible labour markets could undermine demand in these countries in the short term. I am not convinced that this is a foregone conclusion, but even if it were, there is a trade-off between short-term pain and long-term gain. An increase in consumer and investor confidence and a shortening of unemployment lines will in the medium term cancel out any short-term dip in consumption.

Cutting employment and income will increase confidence in future employment and income—did I hear that right?  That must be why there is such a positive market reaction every time a new round of statistics points toward contraction.

And, incidentally, how are all the world’s governments going to simultaneously increase competitiveness?

It’s unfortunate, to put it mildly, that our economic futures depend on people like this.

Environmental Regulation and Jobs

The short answer is that it’s the wrong question.  Now for the longer answer.

A Further Sign of Academic Idiocy

I proposed a guest speaker for this semester. Our chair told me that I may not be able to extend the invitation. The University is exploring the possibility of charging for the use of rooms. I am reminded of Charles Davenant, one of the subjects of my new book, who wrote, "Everyone is on the scrape for himself, ... each cheating, raking, and plundering what he can, and in a more profligate degree than ever was known." Davenant 1701, pp. 300-301. At least the restrooms are still free for the moment.

Cutting Teacher Compensation: A Demand and Supply Model

Eric Kleefeld reports:

about double the number of Wisconsin public school teachers have retired this year when compared to the past two years, before Scott Walker's anti-union law -- which stripped away most collective-bargaining rights for public-sector unions, and required greater contributions by public employees for their healthcare and pensions -- was ever proposed or much less passed."It wouldn't make sense for me to teach one more year and basically lose $8,000," said Green Bay teacher Ginny Fleck, age 69, who has 30 years of experience.

I know some of these Republican governors cite the fact that total compensation for public school teachers is above the national average for all workers, but it is also true that their compensation is below the national average for college educated workers. A case can be made that school teachers were already undercompensated. Cut their compensation and the textbook demand and supply model would predict a shortage of workers as we move along the supply curve. OK – there may be unemployed workers in other sectors ready to take these vacancies but:

Many of these positions will be filled, though no comprehensive statistics are available. But the issue does remain that the school systems have spontaneously lost an unusual amount of total experience. "You can't get experience through a book, you've got to teach," said Green Bay teacher C.J. Peters, who for her own part has retired after 24 years. "I think a lot of talent has been lost."

Irene and the Broken Window “Fallacy”

Doug Matacons argues that Paul Krugman is wrong with what Doug calls the “broken window fallacy”:

What this argument ignores, and what people like Krguman and this Politico reporter refuse to recognize is the simple fact that destruction does not create wealth. The money that will be spent to rebuild, repair, and recover from Irene will doubtless line the pockets of the various contractors that will be hired to perform said work, but to argue that it “creates wealth” is simply a fallacy. By some estimations, the losses from Hurricane Katrina will total in the tens of billions of dollars. That’s wealth that doesn’t exist anymore, it’s gone. The money that will be will be used to pay for the recovery already exists and, rather than being invested in other projects, it will go toward repairing the damage caused by natural disaster. A home damaged by Hurricane Irene will be no more valuable after it is repaired than it was the day before the storm hit, for example. And this analysis doesn’t even take into account the losses from lower consumer spending that businesses will feel as a result of the storm, all of which will reverberate out into the economy as a whole.

Doug then applies to Frédéric Bastiat for this line of new classical thinking:

It is not seen that, since our citizen has spent six francs for one thing, he will not be able to spend them for another. It is not seen that if he had not had a windowpane to replace, he would have replaced, for example, his worn-out shoes or added another book to his library. In brief, he would have put his six francs to some use or other for which he will not now have them.

Yes – economists like Krugman and Keynes must be “bad economists” for looking out at the real world and recognizing that we are far from full employment. I would like to give a lot of credit to Irwin Kellner for this:

The bad news is pretty obvious: Countless houses and cars were smashed by fallen trees; there was lots of water damage from the storm itself, as well as from the water that spilled over from nearby rivers and lakes — and even from the ocean. Widespread power outages left millions in the dark, spoiling food and depriving people of air conditioning. Many businesses had to shut their doors for as long as a week. For retail outfits, this is lost revenue that is unlikely to be made up. The damages have yet to be totaled up, but estimates of $7 billion or so seem to be common ...For their part, restaurants either forced to close their doors or bereft of their usual complement of customers will not be able to make up these lost receipts. The same goes for other retailers like gasoline stations and department stores. Theaters will be unable to make up for the last-minute walk-ins at canceled performances. Cities like New York, which shut down their mass-transit systems and waived tolls on bridges and tunnels, will be unable to recoup these losses as well. Although occurring more than halfway through the third quarter, the effects of this storm could be enough to reduce growth in the gross domestic product by anywhere from a half to a full percentage point.

In other words, Irwin starts with all those negative impacts from Irene that we can see. But Irwin goes onto to note the boost to aggregate demand expected to come in the last quarter of this year. Is Irwin being a bad economist for not seeing the crowding-out effects that Bastiat talked about? Of course not! Shall we repeat? We are far from full employment!

The Long Depression And the Great Recession

A substantial debate over the nature of the the deflation in the US during the 1873-1896 period has erupted on marginal revolution, http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/08/the-deflation-of-1873-1896.html#comments . Much of the debate centers on reevaluations of the path of real US output during the so-called "Long Depression" of 1873-79, with newer sources arguing that declline in real output only lasted from 1873-1875, thus arguing that it was not as bad as many thought, and while indebted farmers were hurt by deflation, particularly by the 1890s, this was a golden age of the American economy and a model for laissez-faire policy, with the deflation itself generally a good thing outside of agriculture (whose falling prices helped the rest of the economy).

I am less interested in the matter of deflation and more in the comparison with the current Great Recession period. Indeed, in their book, This Time is Different: 800 Years of Financial Folly, Reinhardt and Rogoff distinguish crises/recessions that do not involve the entire financial sector from those that do, arguing that the latter involve much longer and slower recoveries. For the US economy they list three such episodes, the 1870s, the 1930s, and today, with the current situation perhaps most resembling the events of the 1870s. In looking at the debate on marginal revolution, I am struck even more by the similarities, given this newer data.

So, both had two years of outright decline: 1873-75 and 2007-09. Both involved major financial crashes of international scale, with the downturns international also. The 1870s one started in Germany with a major selloff of silver after the Franco-Prussian War that then spread to the rest of the world, hitting the US most dramatically in a crash on May 9, 1873 arising from financing problems in the US railroad industry, particularly the failure of the Cooke Company after the failure of its bond issue for building the Northern Pacific, the second transcontinental railway. This was particularly important in that the railroad industry was the largest employer in the US economy outside of agriculture, and its leading sector.

The data is most dramatically seen in railroad consturction itself. In fact, the post-Civil War boom in such construction had peaked in 1871, but the decline in production accelerated, going from 6,000 miles worth in 1872 to just over 4000 miles worth in 1873, then plunging to barely over 2000 miles worth in 1872, and dropping further to under 2000 miles in 1875, the bottom.

Now here is where the similarity to the present day becomes clearest, despite the carrying on by some in the marginal revolution discussion to the effect that after 1875 everything was just fine. It wasn't, and it is no accident that the period to 1879 is viewed as depressed. Yes, railroad construction began to recover, just as output did in the US starting in late 2009. But it did so only fitfully and basically remained flat and low during the 1876-78 period, fluctuating around 3000 miles of construction, much as we have seen a very weak recovery since the bottom in 2009. Only in 1879 did construction surge again up to 5000 miles, followed then by the biggest surge of all as the 1880s would prove to be by far the leading decade of rail construction, only to be followed by a nearly total collapse in the 1890s, the decade that gave us the populist movement.

Why Would Eric Cantor Insist on Paygo for Irene Disaster Relief?

Eric Cantor stated his position:

"Yes there's a federal role, yes we're going to find the money -- we're just going to need to make sure that there are savings elsewhere to continue to do so," Cantor told Fox News on Monday.

Cantor has suggested before that we don’t have the money for additional government spending. And I guess if one were foolish enough to believe we were near full employment, one might worry about the crowding-out of private spending. Cantor, however, undermines both claims with his August 29 memo that claims its agenda is to create new jobs with part of his policy message being tax cuts. On policy grounds – Cantor has no principled reasons for this application of paygo.

Thomas Hoenig and the Ever-Expanding Universe of Excuses for High Interest Rates

It’s now a week old—an internet lifetime—but we shouldn’t let this pass without comment.  In an interview with Gretchen Morgenson, departing Fed district president Thomas Hoenig offers this bizarre justification for his votes against near-zero interest rates since the 2007 collapse:

We as a nation have consumed more than we produced now for well over a decade. Having very low rates for an extended period of time encourages us to continue focusing on consumption, but to correct our imbalances, we have to focus on production.

Global imbalances made me do it!  Think for a moment, however, and the argument makes no sense at all.