Saving, spending and crying wolf

Curious Capitalist regular Peter Varhol had an interesting comment on my China column. An excerpt:

I’ve always been confused by the spend versus save debate … What is bizarre, I think, is that while economists and economic writers such as yourself bemoan the lack of savings behavior in the US, tax policy decidedly supports spending behavior. In fact, some states go so far as to define interest on savings as “unearned income,” with the implication being that since you didn’t really earn it, the state is morally justified in taking more of it.

Further, it seems as though consumer spending behavior might be critical to maintaining a healthy level of economic growth in a mature economy (Japan is a good example of the inverse correlation between savings and growth, though I fully realize that correlation does not imply causation).

I can draw several possible conclusions here:

1. The economists are wrong. This one is especially attractive, because they have been crying wolf on savings since the 1980s, and no apparent harm has befallen us.

2. Economists have little or no impact on US tax policy. That certainly seems possible, even likely.

3. We are miscounting or misanalyzing the problem, and the measures and relationships are not at all what they appear to be.

4. As long as the economy maintains a healthy growth rate over time, all other problems are insignificant.

The people crying wolf about the U.S. current account deficit and low saving rate have mostly been journalists and what Paul Krugman long ago dubbed “policy entrepreneurs.” The economists (at least the ones with PhDs and jobs at fancy universities) have mostly hung back and said things like, “Hmmm, that is interesting.” Or they’ve authored papers proposing that there might be lots of economic “dark matter” floating around out there that, if we measured it correctly, would make America’s balance sheet look a lot healthier. And while they’re certainly not unanimous on this, I think most economists would favor a tax system that increased the burden on consumption and lightened it on saving.

As for point 4, that’s something I’ve been saying for a while. But the current account deficit–that is, the amount of new foreign investment needed to just keep the U.S. economy going–has gotten so huge lately that it’s hard not to worry at least a little bit about how exactly this particular unsustainable trend will come to an end.

The wolf usually shows up right around the time that those who have been crying wolf for years have been utterly discredited. Have we reached that point yet?

Related Topics: Economy & Policy
  • Latest on Business

    Associated Press

    Facebook Insiders Are Cashing Out Their Stakes Before IPO

    NEW YORK (AP) — Insiders and early Facebook investors are taking advantage of increasing investor demand and selling more of their stock in the company’s initial public offering, the company said Wednesday.

    Facebook said in a regulatory filing that 84 million shares, worth up to $3.2 billion, are being added to what’s shaping up to be the decade’s hottest IPO.

    America’s War on TouristsSlate

    David Paul Morris / Bloomberg via Getty Images

    Facebook IPO: What You Need To Know Now

    [The article was updated at 12:20 pm on 5/16/12.]

    Prom night is almost here for Facebook and its suitors. Here’s a program to the biggest high technology initial public offering ever, and what you should know:

  • p_lukasiak

    What disturbs me about the current account deficit is that it makes the US subject to economic blackmail. China could invade Taiwan tomorrow — and tell the US that if it interferes it will send our economy into the dumpster by selling off its US Treasury assets. And I suspect that one of the big reasons we have so little leverage with the Saudis is how much of our debt they are holding.

    In other words, the reason why a significantly higher rate of savings by US citizens is desirable is that it ensures the economic independence of the US.

    (and anyway, is savings rate really a function of consumer spending, when so much consumer spending is debt-driven itself?)

  • Peter Varhol

    We say that our debt is held by “Taiwan,” but in fact it is held my many factions for many reasons. I’m not sure those groups could act in concert to dump US debt, at least not without causing some members as much harm as it might the US. And I tend to distrust any explanations that involve mysterious conspiracies. As for Saudi Arabia, I suspect that our inability to definitively project power into the region stems from a) oil, and b) the inherent dangers of becoming too emotionally entangled in the region (hmmm . . . and what does that say about Iraq, I wonder).

    I suspect that much consumer spending behavior is debt-driven, but we have set up tax policy to encourage this. And this seems to have created some robust and healthy capital markets in the US, so I’m not convinced it’s all bad from a macro perspective. From an individual standpoint, however, it seems foolhardy.

    Thanks for addressing my query, Justin.

  • http://timnuccio.com timnuccio

    If the Chinese dumped all their bonds on the open market, their currency would appreciate and they would undergo a severe recession. I’m not sure that’s even a plausible idea in the most extreme of cases.

blog comments powered by Disqus