The US’ presidential election is now just six months away. If history is a reliable guide, the outcome will depend significantly on the economy’s performance between now and Nov. 6, and on US voters’ perception of their economic future under the two candidates.
At the moment, the US economy is limping along with slow growth and high unemployment. Output grew by just 1.5 percent last year, and real GDP per capita is lower now than before the economic downturn began at the end of 2007. Although annual GDP growth was 3 percent in the fourth quarter of last year, more than half of that reflected inventory accumulation. Final sales to households, businesses, and foreign buyers rose at only a 1.1 percent annual rate, even slower than earlier in the year. And the preliminary estimate for annual GDP growth in the first quarter of this year was a disappointing 2.2 percent, with only a 1.6 percent rise in final sales.
The labor market has been similarly disappointing. The March unemployment rate of 8.2 percent was nearly three percentage points above what most economists would consider a desirable and sustainable long-run level rate. Although the rate was down from 9 percent a year ago, about half of the change reflected a rise in the number of people who have stopped looking for work, rather than an increase in job creation and the employment rate.
Indeed, the official unemployment rate understates the weakness of the labor market. An estimated 6 percent of all employees are working fewer hours per week than they would like, and about 2 percent of potential employees are not counted as unemployed because they have not looked for work in the past few weeks, even though they would like to work. Adding these individuals to those officially classified as unemployed implies that about 15 percent of potential labor-force participants are working less than they want.
Solid increases in payroll employment at the start of the year contributed to a general sense of confidence. However, the rate of increase in payroll employment fell in March to less than half of the rate recorded in previous months, and the number of workers claiming unemployment benefits recently jumped to a four-month high.
Even those who are working are seeing their incomes shrink. Real average weekly earnings have fallen in recent months, and are now lower than they were 18 months ago. The broader measure of real per capita after-tax personal income has also been falling, and is back to levels last seen a year ago.
Despite their declining incomes, households raised their spending early this year at a rapid pace by cutting their saving rate to just 3.7 percent. Without further declines in the saving rate from this very low level, consumer spending will not continue to grow as robustly. Recent reports of declining consumer confidence reinforce the likelihood that spending will slow in the months ahead.
Moreover, the housing market remains in bad shape. The most reliable index of comparable house prices has continued to decline month after month, and prices are now about 7 percent lower in real terms than a year ago, implying a US$1 trillion loss of household wealth. With roughly 25 percent of all homeowners with mortgages owing more than their homes are worth, the decline in house prices reflects high rates of default and foreclosure. Falling prices, together with stricter lending standards, has spurred a shift by would-be home buyers to the rental market, causing recent declines in the sales of both new and existing homes.
The weakness of America’s economy is not limited to the household sector. Industrial production has been unchanged for the past two months, and utilization of industrial capacity has declined. And the monthly purchasing surveys conducted by the Institute for Supply Management now indicate weaker activity among service firms as well.
Looking ahead, strong headwinds imply that it will be difficult to achieve better economic performance in the rest of the year. Higher energy prices are reducing real household spending on non-energy goods and services; weakness in Europe and Asia will hurt US exports; state and local governments are cutting their spending; and concerns about higher taxes next year will dampen both business investment and big-ticket consumer spending.
The economy is thus shaping up to be a serious liability for US President Barack Obama, who is likely to place the blame on the conditions that he inherited from former president George W. Bush, and on the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. However, the public is likely to place the blame on the president, and surveys indicate that a growing number of Americans believe that Mitt Romney, the almost certain Republican candidate, would do a better job than Obama at managing the economy.
The polls are very close, and voters have not yet locked in their decisions. The economy could rise more sharply than expected in the months ahead. If not, Obama will try to shift attention from the overall economy by emphasizing his plan to raise taxes on high-income individuals, and a variety of other issues, including immigration and the role of women, might influence voters.
However, the state of the economy is usually the most important determinant of who wins national elections in the US, and US economic conditions now favor Romney.
Martin Feldstein, a professor of economics at Harvard University, was chairman of former US president Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers and is a former president of the US 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