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!
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.
ReplyDeleteU.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.
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.
DeleteGood 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.
ReplyDeleteLet's hope!
DeleteIf 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.
ReplyDeleteNice 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.
DeleteDear 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.
ReplyDeleteYour 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.
Hi Charles,
ReplyDeleteIf 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.