Just how bad is the outlook for the US’ economy? Unfortunately, you cannot tell from the forecasts.
These days, it is common to read forecasts predicting that the US economy will grow at a 3 percent annual rate in the coming year, but just what does that mean?
The forecaster is not saying that he or she is confident that growth will be exactly 3 percent. Every forecaster recognizes that the actual growth rate may be higher or lower than the number that he states. There is a distribution of possible growth rates, and the forecaster is telling us just one of the outcomes that he can contemplate.
If a forecaster tells us that he “expects” a growth rate of 3 percent, does that mean that he thinks that it is as likely to be above 3 percent as it is to be below 3 percent — the “median,” as he sees it, of the distribution of possible growth rates? Or could it mean that he thinks the most likely growth rate will be close to 3 percent (the “modal” value), even though he may believe that it is much more likely to be less than that value than to be greater?
Many forecasters currently believe that there is a significant probability that the economy will slump during the next 12 months — a “double dip” in the expansion process. It is possible for them to hold that view and still forecast 2 percent growth for the next 12 months as the most likely outcome or the “median” of their probability distribution.
Any decisionmaker who depends on forecasts — a businessman, an investor or a government official — needs to know the probability of very low or very high growth rates, as well as the median forecast. However, that information remains hidden.
Some surveys of forecasts report the distribution of the forecasts of the different individuals being surveyed. We might read that the average forecast of 20 different forecasters is 2.8 percent, with the five highest forecasts above 3.2 percent and the five lowest forecasts below 2.5 percent. While that is useful information, it does not say anything about the extent to which each forecaster believes that growth might turn out to be less than 1 percent, or even less than zero.
Recent US data has clearly raised the probability that the economy will run out of steam and decline during the next 12 months. The key reason for increased pessimism is that the government stimulus programs that raised spending since the summer of last year are now coming to an end. As they have wound down, spending has declined.
The government programs failed to provide the “pump-priming” role that was intended. They provided an early spark, but it looks like the spark did not catch. For example, a tax subsidy for car purchases caused GDP to rise in the third quarter of last year, with more than two-thirds of the increase attributable to motor-vehicle production. However, now that the subsidies have ended the level of both sales and production has declined. A recent survey of consumers reported the lowest level of intended car buying in more than 40 years.
Although annual GDP growth was 3 percent in the first quarter of this year, almost all of it reflected inventory accumulation — some of which, no doubt, was unwanted build-up caused by disappointing sales. When inventory accumulation is excluded, first-quarter growth of “final sales” was just 0.8 percent in annual terms — and 0.2 percent compared to the fourth quarter of last year.
The second quarter benefited from a surge in home purchases, as individuals rushed to take advantage of the tax subsidy for home buyers that expired in April. But what will happen in the third quarter and beyond now that that program has ended?
While it would be rash to forecast a double dip as the most likely outcome for the economy during the rest of this year, many of us are raising the odds that we attribute to such a downturn. Unfortunately, those forecasts of what might happen remain hidden.
Martin Feldstein is a professor of economics at Harvard and was chairman of former US president Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers and former president of the National Bureau for Economic Research.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers