Austerity, Recession and Staving off Boomergeddon

A year and a half ago, I went out on a limb and predicted that the budget austerity plan implemented by the newly elected Conservative Party in the United Kingdom would pay off. While chopping down the size of the budget deficit would act as a Keynesian-style depressant on the economy, I hoped that re-establishing credible budget discipline would reinvigorate private investment and help the U.K. economy skirt a recession. The results of the English experiment, I suggested would serve as an economic model for the United States to either emulate or avoid.

Well, as much as it pains me to say it, I was wrong. The U.K. slid back into a recession in the 1st quarter of 2012, shrinking 0.2% after contracting 0.3% the previous quarter. That’s extremely mild as far as recessions go, especially considering the weakness of the Euro-zone economy as a whole, but a recession it is.

Reports the Wall Street Journal: “Recession’s return will provide fresh ammunition to opponents of Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne’s austerity drive, an aggressive program of tax rises and spending cuts aimed at closing a persistent budget deficit that critics say will strangle growth.”

Now we have proof (as if it were needed): There is no easy way out of the fiscal dilemma that modern democratic welfare states have constructed for themselves. Re-establishing fiscal discipline will cause short-term economic pain that will register as immediate political pain. Conservatives may have enough time before they are required to hold another Parliamentary election that they can tough it out. But the United States political system, with its two-year electoral horizon, is not constituted to endure pain for long.

Democrats aren’t inclined to budgetary austerity in the first place, but the English example will only amplify their natural intransigence towards spending cuts. More worrisome, fears of recession will reinforce the Republicans’ political timidity. If you base your credibility as a ruling party upon the ability to generate jobs in the short term, you can’t handle the blow-back from a recession, not even a mild one.

If the Dems hold onto the presidency this fall, I don’t expect any serious deficit-fighting efforts other than taxing the rich. If the Republicans take over, I foresee only tepid measures to roll back the size and scope of government. I could be wrong. I certainly have been before! But with the U.K.’s example providing little cause for hope, I just don’t see the political will in this country to pull us back from Boomergeddon.

Update: Maybe we have a case “faux”sterity, not austerity, on our hands. According to this gold bug, U.K. borrowing and debt has increased 32% under the Tories. If this is a fair and accurate representation of the facts, it might explain why private-sector enthusiasm for the British experiment never kicked in.

— JAB


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. austerity as a policy would seem to inherently accelerate economic contraction.

    are we really surprised that this is what happened?

    what else would have been expected to happen other than to cut deficit and debt – which we know comes with some consequences namely lower revenues.

    so the GOP says if you cut taxes it will increase revenues (in theory)… but the opposite (sort of) happens also. If you cut spending…you’re cutting entitlements and govt/dod employees (both of which flow fast into the economy) and that, in turn shrinks jobs associated with that spending.

    when jobs shrink.. tax income shrinks and it looks to be a vicious cycle if because of reduces income taxes, further cuts to govt spending are done.

    I guess it seemed to be obvious that if you cut govt spending that the economy will contract.

    I’m not advocating doing the opposite… geeze, that would be just as bad or worse but I’m not aware of any obvious austerity success stories…

    perhaps there are some….

  2. You’ll know austerity is a successful policy if a country avoids the Boomergeddon scenario that will afflict most industrial democracies within the next 15 years. Avoiding another Great Depression is the definition of success. That’s where we have gotten ourselves.

    In theory, we could grow our way out of the debt crisis. If we could just add a percentage point or two per year to our annual growth rate over the next 20 years, we’d do just fine.

    Good luck with that.

  3. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Far be it from to say “I told you so,” but methinks that the budget cutting hysteria among the global conservatives was very much a reason for the UK’s double dip. It’s common sense. If you have a patient brought into the ER bleeding to death, you don’t deny him blood.

    Read on:

    http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-news/european/britain-slips-back-into-recession/article2413382/?service=mobile

    1. Let’s see where chronic deficit spending gets us. Oh, we already know. Greece.

  4. ” You’ll know austerity is a successful policy if a country avoids the Boomergeddon scenario that will afflict most industrial democracies within the next 15 years.”

    so…like suppy-side economics, there is no real-world analog for it?

    I was hoping there might be a list of countries that cut their debt and improved their economies as a result of austerity policies.

    I think you ARE on the right track by saying that IF WE GROW.

    The Bowels-Simpson Deficit Commission took that approach comprehensively…with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases to keep from the down-cycle and increase economic activity.

    I just don’t think we can get there with a cuts-only policy and England pretty much proves it. Are there ANY austerity successes?

    1. The U.K. did not pursue a “cuts only” policy. The cuts were packaged with tax hikes. Perhaps that’s where they went wrong.

      Austerity successes? Canada is an excellent example. They started hacking back state spending a decade ago. Their economy is much healthier than ours is now. Sweden, too, I think. They had a banking/financial crisis 10 or 15 years ago, tightened their belts and came out in better shape than most.

      The best policy is to not get too deep into debt in the first place. Switzerland restricts growth in spending to long-term growth in the economy. The Swiss are in better shape than anyone else in Europe.

  5. okay..good to hear that “austerity”….alone CAN work.

    and I agree about the debt…

    the problem we have is a confluence of bad events and timing.

    we started out almost 10 trillion in debt as well as a 1.5 trillion embedded deficit at the same time the economy crashed.

    Even if we did not spent a penny more on TARP or Stimulus – the structural deficit continues to add 1.5T every year.

    the current Prez had little to do with the 1.5T structural deficit (other than as a Senator voting for it, but he did not create it ).

    and he cannot, on his own, cut it … so until and unless we can agree politically on what to cut (or not), the deficit ball rolls on…

    As the rating agencies have stated – I see the deficit/debt as genuine threats to our well being but an even bigger threat to me is our inability to agree on what to do about it.

    we are literally fiddling while Rome burns and at least one side , perhaps both, are willing to wait until the next election or even until one side or the other gets total control and implements ONLY their vision.

    so we’re in a ditch economically and fiscally and instead of calling a wrecker, we’re in a fistfight in the car that is in the ditch.

    that’s does not bode well for us as a country.

    1. “So we’re in a ditch economically and fiscally and instead of calling a wrecker, we’re in a fistfight in the car that is in the ditch.”

      Good analogy!

  6. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Everybody is fighting the last war … or, the last recession.

    Take a look at this graph: http://www.crgraphs.com/

    Prior to the 1990 recession recoveries tended to be very accelerated.

    The last three recessions have seen the slowest job recovery in the 11 recessions since WWII.

    Why?

    My guess is that the aggregate demand for labor in the United States has been in relative decline since the late 1980s. A combination of off-shoring, automation and demographics have created a situation where the latent demand is just not there. When the business cycle turns down there is no pent up demand. Quite the contrary – off-shoring and automation actually increase as employers try to protect margins in the face of shrinking demand for products and price pressure from competitors. Meanwhile, demographics march ever on. Once the business cycle turns up there is no reason to bring jobs back onshore or eliminate the automation.

    The rapid recoveries of the past were a function of a constrained domestic labor pool, relatively low levels of automation growth and population demographics which had ever more people entering their peak earning and peak spending years.

  7. that graph explains it all in my view for the last recession.

    the only thing that would improve it would be to add the depression.

    some folks say it’s Obama’s policies that have caused this recession to be as deep and wide but if you look at the chart – it says 2007 was the beginning.

    that chart also shows why we’re not going to reduce the structural deficit and in turn continue our spiral towards fiscal Armageddon on the debt.

    If Romney wins, this will be the reason why but as DJ observes, I don’t think Romney will change this either. It’s bigger than him or Obama.

  8. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Something is different about those last three recessions.

    If I did the math right then the odds of those three recessions randomly being the last three of eleven are 1 in 166.

    The recessions started under Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. So, no commonality with regard to Dem vs Rep economic policy.

    The Bush tax cuts didn’t make the 2001 recession end quickly.

    The Obama spend-a-thon didn’t make the current recession end quickly.

    The Brits tried tax hikes and spending cuts and failed.

    I really think the conventional economic wisdom has been failing us for the last 15 years or so.

    Just about the time when globalization started in earnest.

  9. The graph certainly tells the story, and it does need explaining.

    Globalization may be one factor at work. It does help explain why the Bush II and Obama downturns were worse than the previous downturns.

    Another factor — the one that I explored in “Boomergeddon” — was the popping of the consumer/housing debt bubble in 2007. Massive debt accumulation helped pull the country out of the 2001 recession on Bush’s watch. The country hasn’t had debt accumulation to help out during the current downturn. Au contraire, we have seen significant private-sector debt liquidation. This problem, like globalization, transcends the policies of individual presidents. It cannot be blamed on Obama.

    What we can blame Obama for is a third factor: the spike in expensive and excessive regulation — health care, finance and the environment — a hostility toward fossil fuel production (drilling in the Gulf, Keystone pipeline, etc.) and idiocyncratic maneuvers like spiking the Boeing Dreamliner plant expansion in South Carolina.

    A future economic crisis (if not the next recession, then the one after that) will be precipitated by the massive government debt overhang — the sovereign debt crisis come to the United States. First, we’ll see warm-up financial crises in California, Illinois and perhaps some other states, and then in the federal government. This sovereign debt crisis has been building for a very long time and cannot fairly be laid at the feet of any one president or any one political party nationally. However, blue states will be slammed worse than the red states, and it is the blue state governance model that will collapse.

    In sum, I agree with Don that globalization is one significant factor at work in explaining the weakness of the current recovery, but only one.

  10. in terms of keeping track HOW we got HERE – I like this chart:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CBO_Forecast_Changes_for_2009-2012.png

    … in part… because it clearly shows the undeniable impact of a structural deficit that long preceded the current Prez and who, himself, can do little about it unless a 1.5T pared down budget appears on his desk to sign.

    the “spendathon” is also clearly shown not only in terms of size but scope – as much controversy as there is over the advisability of he stimulus (and the Bush-initiated) tarp…. it does not add to the deficit but it does add to the debt (one time).

    Simpson-Bowles, as well as another proposal show how to both cut the deficit AND grow but it does require more tax revenue – not higher tax rates – but just getting the taxes that legitimately owed as well as recognizing that tax expenditures like mortgage deductions for 2nd and 3rd homes do have consequences in terms of deficits.

    When entire political parties say that budget balance can be reached with cuts only (austerity) – and they do not budget from that – the Prez never gets anything at all to sign (or veto).

    It’s one thing for Paul Ryan to whack Medicare (I for one believe something along the lines of what he proposes is inevitable) but when his proposal does not reach budget balance until 2030 and even then it’s based on totally idiotic assumptions about growth – it’s not a legitimate proposal and yet there are no others that the GOP supports. They don’t even support Ron Paul’s budget which balances in 5 years based on draconian cuts but also cuts to DOD – which is apparently a deal-breaker for the GOP.

    we should be clear. Our problem is not that we are doomed by a deficit and debt that is so out of control that we have no hope.

    Our problem is a war of philosophies and there are too many who will watch the US crash and burn rather than swallow a toad (compromise).

    When the American people actually weigh in on this gridlock is unfortunately – never… we’re not voting out of office the very people who are satisfied with not doing a budget that will get through Congress.

    When I see Eric Cantor voted out of office ON THAT BASIS – I’ll believe that the American (at least Virginian) people have actually caught on to the problem and want it really fixed.

    The difference between us and the Brits is that they actually implemented something. There’s a question about it’s effectiveness but the fact that they approved a compromise … gives them hope that a subsequent compromise may also be possible to pass and implement.

    We, on the other hand, are not even on square one.

  11. re: ” What we can blame Obama for is a third factor: the spike in expensive and excessive regulation — health care, finance and the environment — a hostility toward fossil fuel production (drilling in the Gulf, Keystone pipeline, etc.) and idiocyncratic maneuvers like spiking the Boeing Dreamliner plant expansion in South Carolina. ”

    what “regulations” did Obama himself without legislation implement? We do numbers when we talk about employment, unemployment, deficits and debts.

    where are the numbers to back up the “regulation” assertion? If you don’t provide numbers – are you really just politicizing ?

    The Keystone Pipeline … have you ever heard of the Bakken Crude Express Pipeline that Obama has NOT blocked? take a look:

    http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=49&articleid=20120410_49_E1_Tlabsd274727

    especially look at the map and tell me why the Canadians do not want to buy pipeline capacity from this pipeline that uses existing rights of ways including over federal lands and not new right of way through sensitive aquifers.

    more politicization over an issue that virtually nothing to do with the deficit and debt to start with.

    Why?

    why do you throw this in to the discussion Mr. Bacon when it has no relevance to the issue? Politics?

    because we don’t like Obama’s “politics” , even worse, falsely portrayed – we give that as the reason why we cannot agree on a budget?

    really?

    this is my frustration. We can’t do a budget because we don’t like Obama.

    this is the truth.

  12. Regulations: “Some 10,215 new federal regulations from the Obama administration are costing consumers, businesses and the economy overall $46 billion annually, more than five times the regulatory price tag of former President Bush in his first three years in office. Worse: just implementing those regulations had a one-time additional cost of $11 billion, according to a Heritage Foundation analysis provided to Washington Secrets.” http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/03/regulation-nation-new-study-finds-obama%E2%80%99s-regs-cost-46-billion

    I’m sure you’ll slam the Heritage Foundation as a biased source. That won’t hack it. If you dispute Heritage’s numbers, show me *how* they’re inaccurate or biased.

    Keystone pipeline: I have no idea why Canadians prefer the Keystone pipeline over the Bakken Crude Express. The fact is, the Canadians wanted to build it, creating thousands of construction jobs.

  13. I could also mention the 25,000 jobs killed by Obamacare regulations effectively outlawing new physician-owned hospitals. Dozens of announced expansions were scrapped (at least that was the case when I wrote about it a couple of years ago).

    1. Richard Avatar

      Sorry James but I can’t accept your use of statistics here – it’s a bogus form of argument. As they (I) say, “statistics don’t lie, but the (lying) Heritage Foundation uses statistics.” And where on earth did you pull out the 25,000 jobs killed by Obamacare regulations? Out of your [imagination?], or from some industry organization that wants a physican-owned CAT scan center in every little town?

      1. Heritage Foundation: Calling them liars does not constitute an argument. Show me how they’re wrong.

        Source for the 25,000 jobs claim: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/27/casualties-heavy-at-hospitals/

  14. I did not mean to sound as sharp as I did…

    I just cannot accept the dislike or disagreement of a leaders preferred policies as justification for a refusal to generate a budget.

    we cannot begin to reduce the deficit until we can pass a budget.

    how long will we go without passing a budget?

    what happens come Fall if Obama wins again? Does that mean for the next 4 years – the GOP will continued it’s pitched battle to agree to a budget?

    Is the only way we get a budget if one party wins both Houses and the Presidency?

    perhaps NOT have a budget and operating on continuing resolutions is what happens until we can agree on a total majority leadership, eh?

  15. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Wow, Jim Bacon has spun more fairy tales here than the Brothers Grimm!

    (1) Obama regs did NOT kill whatever thousand jobs in physician-owned hospitals. On the contrary, a LACK OF REGULATION has allowed big managed care firms, non-profits and others to effectively buy up doctors’ practices and shut those who resist out of work. Check out Carilion in Roanoke.
    (2) The Keystone pipeline is NOT essential for American energy needs. We have plenty of new oil from the Dakotas and Kansas and other states. As far as natural gas, our problem is TOO MUCH not too little. Keystone would take dirty oil sands oil from Canada all the way to the U.S. Gulf Coast which already has lots of oil.

    (3) The Gulf of Mexico? Ever hear of Deepwater Horizon? Again, too little regulation. BP and its contractors got away with not having to install BLOWOUT PREVENTERS that even Brazil requires. There was no federal oversight. The feds were to busy eating BP dinners and literally going to bed with them. Once again, you are looking at only one side of a business. Too bad that ExxonMobil, which make obscene profits, have to upgrade their offshore technology. What about other businesses, such as seafood and tourism that got hit? You don’t mention those.

    (4) One of the biggest causes of the latest recession was the fact that the SEC LOOSENED regs to allow much larger equity to debt ratios. The feds did not bother to track credit default swaps or CDOs. They let hedge funds and derivative traders do whatever the hell they wanted.

    Will you kindly expand your reading list from the usual right-wing drivel from the Examiner and the Heritage Foundation?

    1. All four points you raise here are refutable — they are either factually inaccurate or totally miss the point. Alas, I do not have time this morning to assemble the evidence to knock them down. Suffice it to say, I reject your analysis in all particulars.

      As for the “drivel” I read, applying pejorative labels does not constitute an argument. I’d be a lot more impressed if you actually read the “drivel,” understood the facts and arguments presented, and rebutted the facts and arguments. But that is not something I’ve ever known you to do.

  16. again… I think there can and actually ought to be principled debate on energy policy but I point out also again that a number of new pipelines are proceeding without objection from the WhiteHouse to include thousands of new drill rigs for both oil and natural gas – even on Federal Lands and offshore.

    That is not good enough for the GOP but when you weigh the administrations overall record on drilling, pipelines, exploration, it becomes apparent the objections are not against administration policy but about specific projects – like Keystone – other pipelines are going forward unfettered.

    but the bigger point is WHY these kinds of issues justify budget gridlock?

    You cannot govern the country if objections over SOME policies become the reason why no budget is agreed to.

    We just saw how ignorant that is in Va when Dems were willing to use ONE issue to block a budget – and WHERE do you think they got that idea from?

    this is like having two guys to come fix your furnace and they can’t agree on how to do it so they both sit down and refuse to budge.

    this is how our government is operating now.

    this is ultimately what will cause Boomergeddon.. not what seems more obvious. As bad as our situation is fiscally, it is still fixable – in theory.

  17. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Bacon,
    You are so slippery! Arguing with you is like frisking a seal!

    1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDWLCPgSQ0U

      At least I can balance a ball on the end of my nose.

  18. geeze Peter how could you compare Bacon to a playful seal?

    makes one wonder when we grow up from being “playful” kids that in the end – we are still sealike souls….

    perhaps you’re on to something here…

    😉

  19. “If the Dems hold onto the presidency this fall, I don’t expect any serious deficit-fighting efforts other than taxing the rich. ”

    ===============================================
    Half of our deficit is a result in a drop in revenue due to the slow economy.

    The last time the Deficit decreased was after teh Clinton tax increases, when the economy was good, we ran a surplus, and reduced the national debt. We were within ten years of paying that debt off when the Bush tax cuts reversed the trend.

    In 1916 the income tax started at 1% on incomes of over $2k and increased to 7% for the highest income tax payers. Almost no one but the rich actually paid the tax because the average income at that time was only around $750 per year. Today, only 41% escape aying any tax, and they are mainly the young and the old. Today, the wealthiest taxpayers pay ony 3.5 times what the minimum earning taxpayer pays, instead of 7 times as much.

    Since 1913, we have broadened the base and reduced the progressivity.

    Since the last time social security was adjusted, in 1983, average wage rates have stagnated and the wealthy have gained much of the gains in wages – above the maximum at which SS is charged. The unexpected and unforecast increase in wage disparity alone, accounts for as much as 60% of the shortfall projected for SS 25 years from now.

    When the rich have a disproportionate share of the total wealth and the total earnings, where else will you get the money? It is to the point now that if you took half of the increase in wages from the bottom 60% of earners since 1983, you would get almost nothing.

    Tax the rich, indeed.

  20. In 1913 the federal income tax startes at 1% of incomes over $20K, not $2k.

  21. If you dispute Heritage’s numbers, show me *how* they’re inaccurate or biased.

    ===============================================

    The report only tals about the cost of the regulations and does not include the benefits or savings from them.

    “As this study focuses on the cost of major regulations, rather than the cost-benefit trade-off, no benefits or “negative costs” were included.”

  22. the Keystone Pipeline will actually INCREASE gasoline costs not reduce them.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/will-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-lower-gasoline-prices/2012/03/01/gIQAtWkXlR_blog.html

    the oil is currently “stranded” and cannot go to expanded world markets.

    the more they produce that they cannot export, the more they have to discount the price to to sell it .

    once the pipeline is finished, the price of the oil (no longer stranded) will increase to whatever it is worth on the world market even if it is sold here.

    the most amazing, fascinating, and disheartening thing about this is that the proponents have convinced the American people that it can lower prices. Americans are, alas not very economically literate but we knew that already from their performances in mortgages, education loans and average FICO score.

    Any commodity is governed by the boundaries of the market it is sold it. Constricted/bounded markets with increased supply results in lower prices at least until the marginal utility threshold is reached. (when people themselves would have to start storing fuel).

    Oil in the North Dakota/Southern Canada now sells for a $30 per barrel discount because it’s the only way they can sell it. Otherwise it stay sin the ground. Not all of that $30 gets reflected in the retail as the refiners are taking profits also – as long as they can sell it but gasoline prices in the North Dakota region are lower.

    but as soon as that oil can find it’s way to a Gulf Coast Refinery – it instantly expands it’s market boundaries and will fetch a premium (but nominal) price – and in turn will also affect the price that we pay domestically for oil whether we obtain it domestically or foreignly.

    any oil that can find it’s way to the world market will be priced at world market prices not domestic.

    The American Consumer is largely ignorant or easily swayed on matters of supply/demand between a domestic supplies and world demand.

    We don’t come close to reducing the price of gasoline by exporting Canadian and North Dakota oil to the world.

    notice that the proponents make he vague assertion about domestic drilling lowering domestic gas prices but I’ve NEVER seen them claim it will reduce the price of gasoline by a penny, or a nickel or a dollar and the reason why is that they know that they’d get outed by the first “fact checker”.

    the result of increased drilling in the US/Canada to be sold on the world market is likely pennies on the barrel rather than even pennies on the gallon.

    STILL – why is THIS issue connected to producing a budget?

    the supposition is that if we drilled more then we’d lower prices, increase productivity, generate more tax revenues… lower the deficit.

    the only problem is – it’s patently and demonstrably false. It’s basically a political argument that is tenuous at best, not even quantifiable as to just how much it might actually reduce the deficit.

    It’s not only a naked and unsubstantiated claim – it’s actually being used as A REASON why the budget should not go forward

    If it were real – a budget that incorporated CBO scoring could be in a proposed budget – to be debated – and agreed to, or not.

    but when you do not agree to one budget provision – since when does that become the reason to not produce a budget at all?

    that’s the problem and that’s the real reason we are headed to Boomergeddon.

  23. re: ” “statistics don’t lie, but the (lying) Heritage Foundation uses statistics.”

    and they then become unquestioned “facts” for the GOP and GOP-like thinkers to parrot as if they came from the Constitution or 10 Commandments.

    Heritage is the one that also keeps blathering about the 17 Trillion “unfunded liability” in the Social Security Trust Fund which, by law, cannot run a deficit and must automatically reduce benefits to match FICA revenues.

    The lies are effective …. and persistent… people accept them on face value – as the truth.

    The other thing I like (NOT) about Heritage is when you actually try to follow their source attributions behind their bogus claims… they lead right to an info swamp of synthesized data at once you untangle turns out to be a largely unsupportable claim.

    So the right, aided and abetted by those who say they are “moderates” who “lean” continue to parrot these Heritage and company “truisms” … as IF .. even IF they were True, that they’d justify the current “blocker” strategy being pursued.

    It’s not only a culture war ..but the truth – that was one of the first casualties.

Leave a Reply