With November’s election in the US fast approaching, the Republican candidates seeking to challenge US President Barack Obama claim that his policies have done nothing to support recovery from the recession that he inherited in January 2009. If anything, they claim, Obama’s fiscal stimulus, the bank bailouts and US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s aggressive monetary policy made matters worse.
Obama’s Democratic defenders counter that his policies staved off a second Great Depression and that the US economy has been steadily working its way out of a deep hole ever since.
Meanwhile, middle-ground observers typically conclude that one cannot settle the debate because one cannot know what would have happened otherwise.
There is a good case to be made that government policies — while not strong enough to return the economy rapidly to health — did halt an accelerating economic decline, but the middle-ground observers are right that one cannot prove what would have happened otherwise. It is also true that it is rare for a government’s policies to have a major impact on the economy immediately.
However, here is the remarkable thing: Whether one listens to the Republicans, the Democrats or the middle-ground observers, one gets the impression that economic statistics show no discernible improvement around the time that Obama took office. In fact, the reality could hardly be more different.
This is especially true if one looks at revised data, which show the US economy to have been in far worse shape in January 2009 than was reported at the time. The annualized growth rate in the second half of 2008 was officially estimated to have been minus-2.2 percent, but current figures reveal the contraction to have been much sharper — a horrendous minus-6.3 percent.
This is the main reason why economic activity in 2009 and 2010 was so much lower than had been forecast — and why unemployment was so much higher.
The maximum rate of economic contraction — veritable free fall — came in the last quarter of 2008. More specifically, according to the monthly GDP estimates from the highly respected forecaster Macroeconomic Advisers, it came in December 2008 — the month before Obama was inaugurated. However, the growth trajectory miraculously reversed as soon as Obama’s term began, yielding a clear “V” pattern in 2008 and 2009.
The full force of the fiscal stimulus package began to go into effect in the second quarter of 2009, with the US National Bureau of Economic Research officially designating the end of the recession as having come in June of that year. Real GDP growth turned positive in the third quarter, but slowed again in late 2010 and early last year, which coincides with the beginning of the withdrawal of the Obama administration’s fiscal stimulus.
Other economic indicators, such as interest-rate spreads and the rate of job loss, also turned around in early 2009. Labor-market recovery normally lags behind that of GDP — hence the “jobless recoveries” of recent decades. However, official data on monthly job losses and gains reveal an obvious “V” shape here, too. The end of the free fall for private-sector employment came precisely when Obama was inaugurated.
Again, such data do not demonstrate that Obama’s policies yielded an immediate payoff. In addition to the lags in policies’ effects, many other factors influence the economy every month, making it difficult to disentangle the true causes underlying particular outcomes.
Given that difficulty, the right way to assess whether the fiscal stimulus enacted in January 2009 had a positive impact is to start with common sense.
When the government spends US$800 billion on such things as highway construction, salaries for teachers and policemen who were about to be laid off and so on, it has an effect. Workers who otherwise would not have a job now have one, and they might spend some of their income on goods and services produced by other people, creating a multiplier effect.
Those who claim that this spending does not boost income and employment (or that it causes harm) apparently believe that as soon as a teacher is laid off, a new job is created somewhere else in the economy or even that the same teacher finds a new job right away. Neither can be true, not with unemployment so high and the average spell of unemployment much longer than usual.
They also believe that the government deficit drives up inflation and interest rates, thereby crowding out other spending by consumers and firms.
However, interest rates are at rock-bottom levels — even lower than in January 2009 — while core inflation has slowed to a pace unseen since the early 1960s.
The conditions of the past four years — high unemployment, depressed output, low inflation and low interest rates — are precisely those for which traditional “Keynesian” remedies were designed.
Economists’ more sophisticated forecasting models also show that the fiscal stimulus had an important positive effect, for much the same reasons as the common-sense approach. The non-partisan US Congressional Budget Office reports that the 2009 spending increase and tax cuts gave a positive boost to the economy, and indeed had the extra multiplier effects predicted by traditional Keynesian models.
Allowing for a wide range of uncertainty, the office estimates that the stimulus added between 1.5 percent and 3.5 percent to GDP by the fourth quarter, relative to where it otherwise would have been. The boost to GDP in 2010, when the peak effect of the stimulus kicked in, was roughly twice as great.
Of course, econometric models do not much interest most of the public. A turnaround needs to be visible to the naked eye to impress voters. Given this, one can only wonder why basic charts, such as the 2008 and 2009 “V” shape in growth and employment, have not been used — and reused — to make the case.
Jeffrey Frankel is a professor of capital formation and growth at Harvard University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs