Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Age of Aquarius is over – Put some clothes on

Comments I received after my last blog confirm what I have been sensing since the last US presidential election – people are losing interest in analysis. It is not possible to summarize all the facets of this loss but a common thread is that we are in an age or a cycle that appears to be strengthening – and that stage or cycle is one that seems to be on auto-pilot. 

Thus attempts to argue or reason against it are virtually useless. That some Democrats stress that winning the election gives them the right to move on with their agenda of change just reinforces these feelings of inevitability. 

This posting is meant to address this seeming loss of hope amongst those who do not agree with the policies of the Democrats. I am a little more optimistic than some of these worried folks and I believe my optimism is supported by history. But I have to admit, it is not easy as a macroeconomist to watch the current experiment. It reminds me of looking back at the early 1970s and the Nixon Wage and Price Controls. 

Everyone knew they would fail – the only question was when they would end and how much damage they would cause. Instituted in August 1971 they were finally abandoned in 1974 as prices continued their escalation through 1980. Nixon, a conservative economist was mystified by the newly coined macroeconomic disease – Stagflation – and he lost faith in traditional macro and opted to try something new and different. (By the way I coined the term Infession at the time but apparently my status as a graduate student did not allow my terminology to rival the more popular term stagflation.)

Today our government is tormented again by a new disease – this time it is a housing and financial crisis that led to a deep recession of six quarters followed by a very slow and weak recovery period. Our policy makers responded with a strong dose of traditional Keynesian stimulus – a coordinated fiscal and monetary expansion that injected trillions of dollars into the economy. At the onset of the recession in 2008 it seemed reasonable to support a housing/financial intermediation with a strong Keynesian spending impulse.  But we are now many years beyond the beginning and the end of the last recession and the Keynesians are not ready to throw in the towel. The reluctance to ditch continued stimulus seems shared in many important places including Japan, Switzerland, Great Britain and others.  The European Central Bank joins our Federal Reserve in a pledge to do what is necessary to keep spending growing.  Both have acknowledged risking higher debt and inflation for the sake of short-term economic stimulus.

It may be surprising to many of you that some monetarists support the use of a Keynesian stimulus in the short-run.  Some monetarists accept much of the Keynesian model as it relates to the short-run. But monetarists and other non-Keynesians distinguish themselves when they disagree with Keynes’ statement that we are all “dead in the long-run.” This was Keynes’ way of saying that all that matters is the here and now. Non-Keynesians, however, think we need to worry more about the future. Many non-Keynesians might agree to the stimulus in 2008 and 2009 yet object strongly to continuing such a policy beyond the worst of the recession.

And that is where we find ourselves in 2013. Keynesians believe that austerity or a policy to even gradually remove stimulus today would be tantamount to pulling the proverbial rug out from under the economy.  They don’t even want to talk about it. It is like global warming. If a person challenges conclusions from weather data they are branded immediately as either ignorant or falsely motivated. And those are the nice names. Someone who worries today about future debt or inflation is not considered to be serious. In this environment it is no wonder that people don’t want to analyze or argue.

So let me turn away from the specifics of the debate and explain why history makes me somewhat optimistic. I think we are rapidly nearing the end of an age of government growth. You will scoff at this prediction because you see no end to government growth but it is often just when things look like they will never change that they do. I am not predicting that the government will vanish but I do see signs that the share of government in the economy will stabilize and decrease.

Who could imagine the Soviet Union falling when it did? At one time it seemed impossible that the German advances before World War II could be stopped. Before coal was discovered European wood was rapidly being depleted with the usual consequences on energy and transportation costs. At one time all the South American countries were run by dictators who promised a future with a closed, self-reliant economy. Much of Africa was once run by European colonials and much of the population was in slavery. The Age of Aquarius as depicted in the musical Hair promised a change in values that had its day but petered out...or else we'd all be wearing tie-died clothing.  History suggests that times do change. Sometimes when they seem the blackest is when they are closest to change.

And that makes sense. Because when times seem the worst is when it becomes more and more difficult to tell the same old untruths. The story of the emperor who wore no clothes was written for an important reason. People will go along with things so as to not disturb the leaders. In that story it was child who said the obvious – noting that the emperor was as naked as a blue jay. And then EVERYONE agreed to that reality. Clearly the emperor needed some new duds.

In the case of government growth and current macro policy it won’t take that much longer to see the failures. We have had about 75 years of this age and while I have no desire to go back to the 1930s it is clear that the government process needs a lot of oversight and improvement. The gem of the government process – Social Security – is nothing like what was promised.  Young adults worry that this protection will not exist for them when they retire. The cost of Medicare and Medicaid grew by multiples of original cost estimates. The War on Poverty has done almost nothing to eliminate poverty and some might say that it has institutionalized it. Obamacare is just getting started and one can predict that it will not fulfill some of its most important promises as the economy tries to digest its thousands of pages of new regulations. An article I read this week projects private healthcare policies doubling in price as early as 2014. They will likely be called traitors by our current government. 

Already there is visible proof that neither the government nor the central bank knows how to reverse what were supposed to be temporary stimulus programs. The end of the temporary decrease in payroll taxes in 2013 is causing the US economy to slow even further this year. The politicians promise to reverse engines at just the right moment but we all know that the date is coming closer and closer when we will have violent reactions to rising inflation, interest rates, and national debt.

I probably left out a lot of the writing on the wall – but the more important part of this story is that the average voter is going to soon feel the negative impacts of the end of the Age of Government Growth. We know the rich cannot and will not support the present and future growth. No amount of make-up applied to smiling political faces will be able to mask the impacts on the middle class. Their incomes will be taxed away and inflation will eat at their earnings. The next government financial crisis will make it impossible for young people to save anything for the future as their 401Ks shrink in value. Young workers will feel hemmed in without future prospects. Government programs will be less affordable and the world will no longer lend money to the US government. Government programs will have to be seriously scrutinized. People will be heard saying – why didn’t we see this coming? Why did we let this go so far? We have had major government deficits ever since the 1960s! 

The average person will come to understand through personal experience that while it sounds good for government to help them – it often is not their best alternative. Somehow the government kept this deception going for nearly a century.

So let’s keep arguing. Let’s keep making the case for unintended consequences. Let’s be specific about why stimulus is not always the answer. Let’s keep reminding people why piling up national debt is self-defeating.  Let's keep explaining how and why more conservative policies, though not perfect, are often better than knee-jerk government solutions. The Age of Aquarius is over. So is the age of rapid government growth! Somebody please put some clothes on Nancy Pelosi!

8 comments:

  1. Dear LSD. I assume a reason for your hope that the Age of Big Govomit is ending is that the only constant is change. As the dependable cynic I know you anticipate my contrarian opinion with regard to your hope that Big Govomit will eventually wither, but I do agree that change is inevitable. So, if the Age of Big Govomit is not over, what, then is going to change? Big Govomit will change; it will get bigger. Under the current Administration it will most certainly will grow: The Rs are helpless and feckless to force even a modest reduction in the rate of sending much less an actual cut in spending and the economy—and most of the world except China—will expand listlessly, failing to generate growth sufficient to produce any meaningful tax revenue to feed the Govomit maw.

    U.S. demographics and current culture, norms, values, and mores are working as we breathe to force an expansion of Govomit and the breathing voters who want and know only Govomit dependence will almost ensure its continued rate of obesity. I doubt the average person will come to understand that Govomit is not their best alternative because they will never have known an alternative either from personal experience or from their K-12 or university educations since those are controlled by left-leaning entities. And as for the Govomit maintaining the deception (hardly a deception since it has become so blatant and in your face to the extent that it is rubbed in your face and detractors scorned) of deficits (and debt), it is impossible for me to consider that Govomit would ever seriously admit its expanding existence too intrusive.

    Science has yet to develop the perfect engine that generates its own energy to keep it operating infinitely. But, Govomit has; it’s called the Federal Reserve.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Charles, I had a feeling you might disagree with me. That's what makes this fun. I can't argue with anything you said -- only time will tell. I believe history is on my side. I won't repeat the same points again but Ages come to an end when people see that they no longer work. It doesn't take any real intellectual acumen on the part of the average guy to know when an Age is no longer working. I know it is hard to see a reversal and that is probably because it has to get worse before it can ever get better. But too much government is bad. It is just a matter of time before people really feel the pain of too much government.

      Delete
  2. Good to see the post, Professor Davidson. My fear is that my generation will do what the previous generation has - pass the buck. Let's hope that we have more courage than our predecessors.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If I read human nature and history correctly, I agree with you, in part. I believe the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the principle of entropy apply to institutions, like governments, as well as organic matter. It begins the very day they are birthed. Take, for example, the USSR. With a little help from the West, it disintegrated under the staggering weight of debt while spending, particularly in the defense realm, continued to increase. Our social programs equate to their defense programs. We'll disintegrate under the weight of our own uncontrolled social spending. However, where I disagree with you is on the point that something better will replace what we have now. Again, look at Russia. While the USSR may not resurrect its ugly head again, Russia as a nation is on a path to another form of its omnipotent central government. I fear with some certainty that when our house of cards crashes down, what replaces it will in no way resemble the representative republic we now have. Again, like Charles, I'm am the eternal pessimist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice point Fuzzy. Looks like you got over your technical issue -- that's great. My response is that history offers some insights. Russian history is full of strong central government, dictators, etc -- even before the Soviet period. Our history, in stark contrast was born of federalism and strong distrust of central government. Large and growing government is a recent phenomenon in the USA. So I think the jury is out. Your pessimism is a strong case and is hard to dismiss. But I think in the US it is possible that an era of strong government growth could be followed by one with much weaker government growth.

      Delete
  4. Dear LSD. This eternal pessimist and cynic cannot not respond to your blossoming and, albeit subdued, rejoinder to the Fuzmeister. First, some agreement: That our history was born of . . . distrust of central Govomit. Yes, and OK. But, now, there is no nascent—let alone growing—distrust of strong central Govomit. On the contrary—the election results—with the exception of keeping the House in R hands—suggest favorably for more Govomit—and as I said the demographics are in that favor.

    Your example of Russian history controlled by dictators and their eventual demise makes a point, but only superficially—and I add though somewhat esoterically—in the case of the Bolshevik revolution not because of a spontaneous uprising of the masses, or “the weight of central Govomit”—but because it was planned, financed, and orchestrated by Germany, England, and the U.S.—particularly, the European shadow money-men who gave money to both the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks—betting both sides against each other—to prevent the Russian Govomit from making a separate peace with Germany which would release its troops to fight against England and France. By financing both sides, the shadow money-men assured themselves of lucrative contracts in post-war-revolutionary Russia. (Look up the Rothschild Formula).

    More recently, the demise of Soviet Russia resulted not from voter-induced bloat (as is the situation today in the U.S.) but from its philosophy of central-Govomit control, inherently inefficient and corrupt, and inability to finance a military contest with the U.S. It simply caved in on itself not because of inherent weakness in controlled economies (as we’ve come to believe, I hope), but because it no longer could pay for itself. (Unfortunately, it did not have an ATM card with our Federal Reserve, eh?) Which brings me to your point, and blossoming hope—that the U.S. Govomit big machine will eventually give way to a U.S. Govomit smaller machine.

    For that to evolve, two things must occur. First, there will have to be a wave of sea change favoring freer less regulated capitalism and a reduction in U.S. debt (and deficit)—ergo a contraction not only of Govomit spending but also of the money supply. So, my dear optimistic friend, please explain how those two things can occur . . . given the not only the anti-capitalist sentiment here but globally and that even today’s leftist and conservative economists agree that a contraction in Govomit sending will be recessionary at minimum and deflationary at worst . . . and that a reduction in the money supply will further tighten nascent looseness in credit for housing, agriculture, commercial paper, etc., which contributed to the ’29 depression. Quick, run to your local bank to withdraw your paper/fiat money.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Charles,

    If you look at Russian history -- well before the end of WWII that you quote you see a long history of Czars and therefore no real tradition of democracy and a lot of centrist government. They have NOTHING TO GO BACK TO except Tsars. We in stark contrast started with the idea of small federalist democratic government and even though that flame might appear much dimmer right now, there are many educated centrists who can be convinced that Jefferson didn't have it all wrong. But their being convinced is only part of the solution. The rest comes when despite repeated beautiful speeches by Democrats, the average person's lot will continue to diminish. There will come a point when they can no longer blame Reagan or Bush or the current House. I say this because like you I see that fiscal and monetary policy are wrongheaded and dangerous. We have not yet experienced the direct and extreme consequences of current policies. We will. We will be sorry. And then the Emperor will have no clothes. If Greece can impose austerity -- then so can we.

    ReplyDelete