Enjoy 2.4% Economic Growth While You Can. It Won’t Last.

by James A. Bacon

Cackling with joy now that the Gross Domestic Product is projected to grow 2.4% this year, lovers of the leviathan state see the faster pace of recovery as a vindication of the Obama administration’s activist economic policies. In truth, the current burst of growth reflects the most stimulative fiscal policy since World War II combined with one of the most stimulative monetary policies ever.

The question that leaps immediately to mind is, “How long can it last?” The answer: “Not long.”

The chart below shows the yield on 10-year Treasuries adjusted for inflation — the “real” interest rate.

The rate was low — dangerously low — during the Bush years, and it is widely acknowledged that Federal Reserve Board policy under Chairman Alan Greenspan contributed to the real estate asset bubble and ensuing crash. But the low interest rates of the Bush/Greenspan era were nothing compared to the super-low rates engineered by Ben Bernanke. Real interest rates on Treasuries are now in negative territory. You can’t get any more stimulative than that.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to rack up budget deficits, which, as a percentage of the economy, have no peace-time parallel in modern U.S. history. Keynesian stimulus during Obama’s years in office totals $5 trillion so far.

Both fiscal and monetary policies are unsustainable. The Obama administration sees deficits declining to less than $600 billion yearly later in the decade — a fiscal contraction of $700 billion in a $15 trillion-a-year economy. Republicans would like to cut even more aggressively. Failure to deliver on those deficit cuts would bring a brief reprieve in fiscal stimulus, but bigger deficits would propel Uncle Sam even more rapidly toward the Boomergeddon scenario I have written about.

Likewise, Fed policy is not sustainable. Bernanke thinks he can keep interest rates super-low for three years, but that’s only assuming inflation remains tame. If inflation heats up — it’s brushing against 3% right now — bond holders will revolt and demand higher yields to compensate for the eroding value of the dollar, accelerating the nation’s inevitable borrowing crisis. If inflation remains restrained, it will be for one reason only: Pallid economic growth keeps wages and commodity prices depressed.

The fact that one of the most stimulative economic policies in the history of the U.S. is yielding a growth rate around a measly 2.4% should be frightening. We’re using up all of our ammo. If the growth rate slows, we’ve got nothing left. We cannot increase fiscal stimulus to $2 trillion a year with collapsing the confidence of the capital markets. And when nominal interest rates are scraping zero, it’s hard to drive them any lower without igniting inflation.

Current policy may succeed in preserving the illusion of recovery long enough to re-elect Obama in November. But there will be economic hell to pay for the next president, whether it’s Obama or one of the tin men campaigning for the Republican nomination, when the inevitable slowdown comes.

It’s no wonder that businesses are hanging on to cash and bullet-proofing their balance sheets. Individual households should be doing the same, and so should Virginia’s state government.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. there is no denying the deficit and debt trends.

    but there is major disagreement as to whether or not “stimulus” was needed to keep us from falling into a depression.

    If you presume that without a stimulus the economy would have bottomed out at the worst point (see on the graphs)… and then stayed there.. then 8% would have been a paltry unemployment number.

    I’m not sure what the alternative to the stimulus should have been but it feels like whatever it was – it would have led directly to a depression.

    so we’ll argue forever into the future about the 5 trillion that was added to the debt in terms of whether there was a choice or not.

    I note that there is apparently no such similar recrimination on the 5 trillion that was added over 8 years previously when there was no recession / depression – just wars out the wazoo with tax cuts “complimented” by doubling the DOD budget.

    there is no question that the debt is not sustainable but there is a real question as to how to not drop back into a double-dip recession.

    the other issue – Bernanke – who is doing from what I can tell.. what people in his role – have been doing for 50 years but now it’s apparently some sort of Democrat/Obama conspiracy to achieve god-knows what….

    the problem with the monetary and deficit firestorm is that it is coming in part from the same culture warriors who attack this president personally – questioning his culture, his residency, his citizenship, his “Americanism”.

    the moderate Republicans have been put in cages and the hard right is running amok across the political spectrum – from religion to monetary issues.

    The American people are very, very uneasy about this.

    the folks on the right talk about the need for businesses to count on a stable political environment even as the very same right appears to be dead set on breaking the govt.

    Boomergetton in this context is almost irrelevant.

    the right seems to WANT an economic meltdown worse that we’ve already seen.

    they seem to delight in bad news and get positively ecstatic when talking about unfunded liabilities.

    I’m not sure where we are headed but I’m pretty sure we don’t want the GOP steering…

  2. LarryG, You’re back into the partisan blame-game. Fine. Blame whom you want. I’m making a simple case: The modest economic growth that we’re experiencing right now is based upon unsustainable fiscal and monetary policy. If it makes you feel better to blame the Republicans, go right ahead. It won’t change anything.

  3. Jim – I’m asking what the alternative could/should have been for a more robust recovery.

    We’ve got a broke economy and it’s sputtering..at least marginally better than before..and you and the GOP is continuing the ” it’s unsustainable” mantra without any real alternatives other than cut taxes further and cut spending but not DOD.

    what I find “unsustainable” is the GOP’s role in this from the day that the economy tanked.

    I’ve seen nothing from the GOP that would actually lift this economy.

    if you cut deficits right now – it won’t help the economy because cutting govt right now… even bringing troops hope and releasing them will likely cause the economy to slide back to something even worse.

    it’s one thing to have Boomergeddon prior to the economic meltdown but it’s a different deal after the economic meltdown.

    I remain convinced that if we had not done the stimulus, we’d now be in the middle of a depression with 25% unemployment.

    that’s what is unsustainable in my view.

  4. 25% unemployment? What do you call the people who are no longer in the workforce? Retired? Disabled? Ghosts?

    Have you noticed that Walmart greeters look younger?

    Priced walnuts lately? What is the intrinsic value of a paper dollar? Why are people hoarding pre-1982 pennies?

    Why is the VA making excuses for their Call Center volume, when the reason people are calling is because the VA didn’t send them their GI Bill money?

    What’s the Deal of the Day? Buying everyday needs with a reward credit card. Why would that be a Deal?

    Who should you believe? Government statistics or ZeroHedge?

  5. It is easy to enjoy higher growth. Invest outside the US.

  6. Other countries had higher stimulus, and record seed faster. Different other countries had less
    stimulus and recovered more slowly.

    And then you had the repression in Egypt, Libya, Syria, which never recovered.

    And Myanmar, which saw the writing on the wall.

  7. re: no longer in the workforce. Fine. Without the stimulus it would have been FAR, FAR Worse.

    GM and Chrysler and all their suppliers would have been gone.

    hundreds of thousands/millions of teachers, police and highway construction workers would have been unemployed.

    even more houses would have been foreclosed and local many local govts would likely have failed.

    Even the State – balanced it’s budget using Federal Stimulus funds.

    Was there another way other than the stimulus that very much added to a huge debt that does threaten the country’s fiscal solvency.

    was there another way?

    the “no-stimulus” folks “other way” would have been to choose the depression as a better alternative.

    I disagree with that. But folks like Jim who claim to be non-partisan use the VERY SAME TALKING points as the right wing does when talking about the stimulus and the recession – as if it’s the stimulus that has caused the recession and we added half again debt when we could have not increased debt.

    this is what the Tea Party and the Social Right is running on and Jim’s talking points with respect to Boomegeddon – I assert – politely but firmly …walks and talks just like the right wing narrative about the stimulus and debt.

    at the end of the day – we disagree about the need for the stimulus but those who oppose the stimulus can’t let it go and move on.. they have to keep going back to it… and you have to ask why.

  8. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Consider this paragraph:

    “Cackling with joy now that the Gross Domestic Product is projected to grow 2.4% this year, lovers of the leviathan state see the faster pace of recovery as a vindication of the Obama administration’s activist economic policies. In truth, the current burst of growth reflects the most stimulative fiscal policy since World War II combined with one of the most stimulative monetary policies ever.”

    Let’s do some forensic work:

    “Cackling with joy.” Doubt it, the recovery has been extremely long and painful and everyone knows it.

    “Lovers of the leviathan state..” ‘What is the leviathan state? Is it a big ship like the Titantic? Logically, then, anyone who is glad to finally see some uptick in GDP is a “lover” of “big government.” Where did this crazy nonsense come from? Maybe take a course in basic logic?

    “A vindication of Obama’s activist policies?” Maybe “in spite of Obama’s activist policies” — Obama’s stimulus never went far enough and had it done so, this all might be so two years ago.

    “The most stimulative fiscal policy since World War II.” Check your facts. The recovery act is peanuts adjusted for inflation. As far spending, check George W. on the wars and Plan D and tax cuts for the rich.

    You know this hyperventilating boilerplate is actually fun to read. Jim,
    why don’t you redo “Boomergeddon” as a graphic novel?

    1. Peter, the ARRA (the stimulus package) was only a small part of the Keynesian stimulus that has occurred under Obama. Don’t forget the payroll tax cuts, unemployment compensation extensions and the spike in social-welfare transfer payments. According to Keynesian theory, deficits are by definition counter-cyclical. While you, Paul Krugman and others may argue that the stimulus wasn’t big enough, the fact is undeniable that it was massive. The deficit numbers speak for themselves — more than $5 trillion over the past four years. The ARRA accounted for less than 1/6th of it.

      George W. may have expanded government spending with foreign wars, Medicare Part D., and SCHIP, but look at his deficit numbers. They were a fraction of the deficit numbers we’re running now. Irresponsible? Yes, as many conservatives warned at the time. But that doesn’t change today’s reality.

      You and LarryG would like to turn this into a partisan debate. It’s all W’s fault, Republicans are hypocrites, etc. Fine. There’s some truth to all that. But it’s classic misdirection and it totally misses the point of my blog post: Whatever economic growth we are enjoying right now is the result of massive fiscal and monetary stimulus.

      Go ahead and play the blame game while the country goes down the tubes. When Boomergeddon happens, I’m sure you’ll be (a) denying that it’s happening, and (b) blaming it on the Republicans.

  9. the “principled opposition” is besides themselves that there seems to be a budding recovery.

    when is the last time elected people were viewed as rooting for economic calamity?

    Jim MAKES THIS a PARTISAN debate by adopting the opposition party talking points – almost in toto.

    keeping score:
    * ARRA
    * payroll tax cuts (you forget “make work pay”)
    * unemployment compensation extensions
    * spike in social-welfare transfer payments. According to Keynesian

    “Krugman and others may argue that the stimulus wasn’t big enough, the fact is undeniable that it was massive. The deficit numbers speak for themselves — more than $5 trillion over the past four years. The ARRA accounted for less than 1/6th of it.”

    Jim says the above is not partisan.

    and he says this with a presumably straight face even as it sounds just like the Republican leaders spouting it.

    but what is the REAL POINT of looking BACK like this anyhow?

    has anyone noticed that this started when it looked like the economy was starting to recover – and this after the GOP fought tooth and nail against any of real proposals to jump start the economy?

    All they’ve done is talk about the deficit and debt the whole time and “job killing” regulations. and their suggestion for fixing the economy “kill the regulations”. Nevermind that 99% of them are long-standing. Kill ObamaCare. Nevermind that the bulk of it is not in force and ignore the fact that both govt and legitimate private organizations say it will actually reduce costs.

    Mitt Romney says out of one side of his mouth that Medicare is unsustainable and then 2 minutes later out of the other side of his mouth, he says that Obama has cut 5billion in Medicare benefits.

    so which is it?

    the GOP is totally rudderless , a clown show, and Jim Bacon here is citing their exact talking points and pouting about the “partisan” responses.

    🙂

    1. Larry, I raised those “partisan” talking points — which, by the way, are undeniably true — only to counter Peter’s partisan talking points.

      You will do anything, won’t you, to wriggle out of acknowledging the reality that our current economy recovery is purchased at the expense of super-stimulative fiscal and monetary policy that (a) are not sustainable, and (b) will come back to haunt us?

  10. ” more than $5 trillion over the past four years. The ARRA accounted for less than 1/6th of it.””

    and the other?

    isn’t it the STRUCTURAL deficit that was inherited at the same time they inherited a seriously damaged economy?

    what’s your point?

    a 1.5 trillion ANNUAL deficit is what was ALREADY IN PLACE when Obama took over.

    What exactly was/is he supposed to do about it when the economy is so badly damaged that it could have gone from recession to depression?

    do you seriously think that John McCain or even Mitt Romney would have gotten rid of the structural deficit at the same time they were trying to resuscitate the economy?

    Jim says he is not partisan on this but his entire philosophy and talking points are 99% of what the Republicans claim and folks like myself disagree with.

    Perhaps we can do this.

    write a post from the perspective of the middle without adopting any of the GOP talking points no matter how tempting!

    I think there is some serious feather dancing going on here where the claimed position is non-partisan but then the feathers get moved to expose a pretty partisan under garment.

    🙂

  11. Larry says the structural deficit was in place when Obama assumed office. He asks, “What’s your point?”

    Once again, Larry tries to turn this into a partisan finger-pointing issue. I don’t care about that. What I care about is *how big the friggin’ deficits are*, no matter who is responsible for them, and *how stimulative the friggin’ monetary policy is*, no matter who is responsible for them. Pretend we’re talking about President X and Fed Chairman Y — no names, no party affiliations, etc.

    Here’s my point (for the third or fourth time): The brief spurt in economic growth we are enjoying today comes from one of the most stimulative fiscal and monetary regimes in U.S. history. The stimulus cannot be long sustained without dramatically awful consequences. Therefore, economic growth is bound to slow.

  12. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Try this for the next book:

    “Cackling with joy, wild-eyed, monstrous Leviathan of Government,favorite of the bookies by 4-1, leaped forward at the diminutive James A. Bacon Jr., dressed in his best American flag WWF costume.

    “Splat!. Bacon went down but countered with a half nelson.

    “Tweet! LarryG, the referee, penalized Bacon for a Lack of Logic.”

  13. ” You will do anything, won’t you, to wriggle out of acknowledging the reality that our current economy recovery is purchased at the expense of super-stimulative fiscal and monetary policy that (a) are not sustainable, and (b) will come back to haunt us?”

    no… not at all. I fully admit that they are both.

    but I consider them the best of worst choices that we had. We were going to go to a depression without those steps.

  14. ” Larry says the structural deficit was in place when Obama assumed office. He asks, “What’s your point?”

    Once again, Larry tries to turn this into a partisan finger-pointing issue. I don’t care about that. What I care about is *how big the friggin’ deficits are*, no matter who is responsible for them, and *how stimulative the friggin’ monetary policy is*, no matter who is responsible for them. Pretend we’re talking about President X and Fed Chairman Y — no names, no party affiliations, etc.

    no. I’m pointing out that the meltdown happened at the same time there was structural deficit.

    no names are named.

    and I’m asking what opportunities were available to reduce the deficit in the midst of the meltdown when revenues were tanking?

    your points and questions sound a lot like Ollie saying “this is another fine mess you’ve got us into” but given the circumstances what other actions could have been taken?

    the only thing I have heard is that we should have cut spending while in the middle of an economic meltdown.

    That austerity measures were what needed to be done.

    there was a crapload of economists besides Krugman who said that was a terrible idea that would have pushed us into depression.

    so MY POINT here is – WHY are you still bringing this up?

    it is what it is. as soon as the recovery get’s better than 2% and stays there, we need to get to cuts… huge cuts…

    but when 1/2 of your deficit is DOD and the “cut” people are saying that DOD can’t be cut – what does that realistically leave?

    you can cut (and should) Medicare and Medicaid and increase premiums, co-pays and deductibles but that’s not going to do much about the deficit… maybe a 1/3.

    what people won’t face is this. The military costs are not just the DOD budget. You’ve got to include VA and pensions as well as all the military work products from Energy and Nasa and other agencies. AND you have to consider Homeland Security as part of National Defense.

    When you add all of this up – it consumes every last penny of our current revenues about 1.3 trillion.

    the reason I consider Jim’s tome partisan is that it walks and talks like the GOP narrative – as if Obama created the DOD and National Defense expenditures and increased Medicare and MedicAid expenditures that have led to the structural deficit.

    He did not. Those increased spendings were there before he took the oath of office – yet he is blamed for not cutting them.

    The GOP had 8 years to cut and did nothing and now it’s Obama’s fault for not cutting.

    I consider Jim’s tome to be very much like the GOP narrative even as he pleads “not guilty”.

    the proof is – there is blame ..but no plan to fix…

  15. It seems a pretty shaky policy to put out a burning town by blowing the dam up river. And then freely give the arsonists who caused the issue a super tanker full of gas paid for by the townspeople.

  16. larryg Avatar

    I think the analogy is that the town is on fire and will burn to the ground if nothing is done and only one thing is really known to work but the GOP absolutely hates that option and wants to dither a while.

    then later.. they blame the option exercised ..but they still don’t have any better ideas… so they blame the fire itself on Obama even though it was the GOP’s kids that set the fire.

    the GOP is a mess. they hate govt and they really and truly don’t have a clue how to deal with economic challenges other than issue talking points.

    they much prefer to go run and hide in the closet and chant magical phrases… “cut taxes”, “cut spending”… see no evil, hear no evil, see no evil, “cut taxes”, “cut spending”… love the job-creators, kill Satan… don’t trust Muslims…the President is not one of us..and we’ll never accept that he is.

    in terms of giving Obama a tanker full of gas… he has not increased the budget in any substantial way and he has made cuts and has adopted much of what is in the deficit commission recommendations.

    for me to believe that the same GOP that went from 0 dollars debt to 5 trillion without an economic meltdown… would now cut the debt when they say DOD can’t be cut… I have zero confidence in them. They have had the opportunity to pass their version of REPLACE after REPEAL – at least as a marker than passes the House.

    they have had the same opportunity to pass THEIR budget in the HOUSE and they have not… and instead have chosen to engage in a war of talking points.

    how can you balance the budget without cutting DOD? there is no way to do that and that’s the reason the GOP has not presented their alternative budget because there is no way that their talking points actually match the realities.

    Obama did the stimulus ..was horse-collared with the built in structural deficit and the GOP will never forgive him… for not fixing what Bush and the previous Republicans destroyed.

  17. Darrell Avatar

    Rest assured the DoD cuts are coming. People are beginning to freak out down here.

  18. larryg Avatar

    two things that many of us know. 1. – Medicare/MedicAid are going to have to be reformed/cut. 2. DOD along with National Defense and DOD-generated costs (such as VA) will also have to be cut if we are to have a prayer of cutting the deficit and balancing the budget – to say nothing of buying the debt down.

    Jim’s “brand” is Boomergeddon but it’s really not Boomergeddon that is the real problem.

    the conventional wisdom of Boomergeddon “type” narratives is that Social Security will swell enormously and disastrous unfunded liabilities will come home to roost.

    Consider for a minute the FICA/SS Law (which also funds Medicare PartA).

    The law says this. Expenditures cannot exceed revenues. Expenditures must, by law, automatically reduce so that revenues are not exceeded; the proverbial “benefits reduce to 75% after the trust fund (surplus FICA) is exhausted.

    the only way for this NOT to happen would be to change the law.

    this would be going in the OPPOSITE direction that we are talking about with Medicare Part B (C,D) and MedicAid which we say we will need to cut, cap, reform, voucherize.

    How many other expenditures in the Federal Budget, by law, AUTOMATICALLY REDUCE?

    and yet the Boomergeddon types wail and flail about the “impending” crisis in the budget brought on by swelling boomers retiring.

    The GOP focus for the budget is on entitlements and lowering taxes, not DOD and not actually producing a balanced budget. Ron Paul’s balanced budget proposal employs draconian cuts to include DOD and a grand total of 7 Republicans support it.

    so we get back to the 2.4% growth… said to be paltry and possibly transient.

    that’s really not a bad rate if sustainable compared to the ups and downs of higher growth rates.

    but what it DOES mean is that the deficit will not be reduced in any major way by supply side revenues.

    which is.. the basic GOP response to cutting DOD – i.e. we won’t have to cut it “much” because economic growth will generate the extra bucks to pay for the increased DOD costs instead of cutting them.

    Don’t believe it? Tell me how many GOP say we must include DOD int he cuts?

    if you want to take a hard look at the things that CAUSED the deficit to begin with AND to look at the things that still keep us from a realistic chance at balancing the budget – it is PRIMARILY the GOP who basically are as bad as tax and spenders as anyone when it comes to DOD.

    Darrell.. how do you reconcile your concerns about the deficit and debt and stimulus spending with the fact that Va, NoVa, and HR/TW are among the largest govt largess teat-suckers in the country?

    Bonus Question: How many Va GOP “we must cut the spending” will include DOD in the cuts even if it hurts Va?

    1. Larry, do you seriously believe that a 26% automatic cut in Social Security benefits would not trigger a convulsive political crisis in this country? Do you not think that the loss of all that purchasing power wouldn’t trigger an economic crisis?

      Of course, that’s not the thrust of Boomergeddon anyway. My argument is that the rest of government will run out of money before Social Security does. Sad to say, Social Security is the most actuarially sound part of the entire budget (with the possible exception of the Highway Trust Fund, although Congress is doing its best to make road/highway spending fiscally unsustainable as well).

  19. larryg Avatar

    Jim – I think there will be serious discussion about what to do but I object to the characterizations that it is “broke” or that it has unfunded liabilities.

    In it’s current form – it is not broke and will never be broke AND it will never run an unintended deficit or run away in the budget like the appropriated entitlements do.

    And the IRONY HERE is that Paul Ryan is proposing for Medicare Part B…essentially how SS currently operates – a fixed, agreed revenue stream that will not change unless it re-legislated.

    that’s the way that SS and Medicare Part A work right now.

    The highway trust fund is 60 billion … admittedly 30 billion over it’s revenues but consider the other parts of the budget. DOD is 900 billion. MedicAid is 300+ billion. The HTF is a gnat on a dogs butt in the bigger scheme of things.

    What is going to run us broke is the DOD+National Defense budget – not entitlements.

    Compare what we spend on those two things compared to the rest of the world.

    We act like we are big and strong enough economically to pay for it.

    We say and believe that even as we have a 15 trillion debt.

    what kind of delusional dunderheads cannot see this?

  20. larryg Avatar

    the conventional wisdom of the doom & gloom types is that if we don’t DO SOMETHING – SS and Medicare will wipe us out.

    and that’s simply not the truth as SS will gradually reduce unless some kind of intervention takes place to not let it gradually reduce.

    Medicare Part B, MedicAid and DOD/National Security are the big gorillas in the closet and DOD/National Security is 1/2 of the problem.

Leave a Reply