To spend or not to spend

David Leonhardt is out with a great column on the spend-vs.-austerity debate (which Steve and Michael have also rung in on). Leonhardt’s piece provides both historical context and intellectual honesty: there are reasons to think it’s time to cut governmental spending and avoid future problems associated with high levels of sovereign debt, but there are also reasons to think that cutting back on fiscal stimulus right now is ill-timed since the recovery isn’t strong and that such action could retrigger recession. Read that column and you’ll walk away understanding that anyone who tells you that the answer is obvious in either direction is being either ideological or dumb.

Leonhardt does, however, leave out one important point.

The big, visceral worry about cutting back on government spending right now is that we might wind up following in the steps of Great Depression-era policymakers. Leonhardt writes:

The parallels to 1937 are not reassuring. From 1933 to 1937, the United States economy expanded more than 40 percent, even surpassing its 1929 high. But the recovery was still not durable enough to survive Roosevelt’s spending cuts and new Social Security tax. In 1938, the economy shrank 3.4 percent, and unemployment spiked.

This is a legitimate concern. But there is also a big difference between now and then. In the late Depression, policymakers cut back not just on fiscal stimulus, but also on monetary measures to prod along the economy.

Overnight I had an email exchange with Liaquat Ahamed, who recently won a Pulitzer prize for his book about Depression-era central banking. He pointed out:

The problem in 1937 was that not only did Roosevelt tighten fiscal policy as Leonhardt says but, that same year, the Fed fearing that banks were too awash with reserves, tightened monetary policy and raised reserve requirements. It was the combination of a very dramatic fiscal tightening and an equally dramatic monetary tightening all in one year that drove the economy back into recession. The moral that can be drawn from the story of 1937 is that if you are going to tighten fiscally, at least keep your foot on the monetary accelerator.

Now, keeping your foot on the monetary accelerator comes with its own host of potential problems—consider how low interest rates fed the asset bubble that led to the collapse in the first place. Nonetheless, on this point, we seem to be “safe” for now, at least in the U.S. The Federal Reserve can’t seem to say enough about how it’s not planning on raising rates anytime soon.

Although, just to be clear, easy monetary policy doesn’t necessarily supplant fiscal stimulus. Ahamed continued:

That said, my view is that the recovery is still too fragile and unemployment too high to withdraw the fiscal medicine that saved us from a repeat of the Great Depression.

Related Topics: austerity, budget, David Leonhardt, deficit spending, Paul Krugman, Economy & Policy
  • Latest on Business

    Thomas Patterson / Statesman-Journal / AP

    The Bleak Unemployment Report: Is Europe to Blame?

    For the first time in almost a year, the unemployment rate rose to 8.2% in May as the economic recovery appeared to not only slow but almost completely stall. And it gets worse.

    The Jury Is Out on the EuroSlate

    Getty Images

    Smartphones of the Future: 6 Predictions

    Future mobile devices will change the way you do business–in ways you probably can’t even imagine. Here are a few predictions.

  • http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    It’s difficult to draw parallels between the Great Depression and the recent (current??) recession. During the early part of the recession we were on a gold standard, meaning the U.S. was not monetarily sovereign, and even after the official end of the gold standard in 1933, the U.S. was on a modified international gold standard, whereby the official value of the dollar was set at 35 per ounce of gold.
    .
    Today, the U.S. is monetarily sovereign, which means it can service any debt of any size any time, requiring neither taxes nor borrowing for this service — a dramatic difference between today and the ’30′s.
    .
    Federal debts are not really debts in the traditional sense. They are a burden neither for the government nor for taxpayers. Federal dollars are nothing more than widely accepted tokens, which the government can create in unlimited quantities.
    .
    I never have heard one solid reason to “withdraw the fiscal medicine,” and even the current discussion of withdrawals have hurt us. Concerns about inflation are wildly overblown, as inflation is one of the easiest of problems to prevent and cure (via interest rate increases).
    .
    Why are we considering the reduction in the creation of these tokens? What is the evidence for this need?

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  • wisegrowth

    You have to think about how much government spending is really needed in this recovery… to do that you have to think about if the markets can stand on their and get healthy…
    The markets can´t do it… Why? They are weak in available credit, consumer demand, increasing savings, deflationary pressures, over supply of labor, downward pressure on wages, lack of export potential, no new technology, decreasing total industrial capacity, over supply of housing, and foreign weak markets due to austerity…

    The recovery is going to be very slow anyway …

    Now, if the economy falls back into recession… what can the government do???
    Lower interest rates? nope…
    Increase spending??? No… that would defeat the purpose of cutting the spending now…
    Lower taxes??? No… the government would get into a vicious downward spiral of lower revenues

    Wait until debt comes down to sustainable levels? …. That´s what the government should just do now… and keep spending until debt levels find an equilibrium that allows growth…

  • bryanfromhouston

    Piggybacking on what Roger said, it is also important to consider teh relative size of the government spending to overall GDP to what it was back during the Great Depression. An across the board 25% hack of spending, I have no doubt (bet my entire year’s salary) produce a full-blown recession if not a repeat Great Depression.
    .
    Further, it is instructive to look at the condition that our banks are in. They have been doing balance sheet repair and raising capital forever. SO, not only are loans not being actively sought by a debt-constrained consumer, loans aren’t being generously offered by banks either.
    .
    This has lead to the GDP- sapping situation where consumer pay off debt and remove money supply from the economy while banks suck up those funds to repair balance sheets and don’t lend it out.
    .
    Now, I’m not entirely sure of the numbers on a purely empirical basis, but logically speaking I understand that GDP = Money supply X Velocity of transfer.
    .
    Austerity would only assist in decreasing both of those factors as banks and consumers are already doing. Given the well-documented under-utilization of capacity both commercial and residential real-estate and industrial and employment-wise….austerity right now seems like an effort in flirting with Japanese-style deflation.
    .
    I understand the idea behind austerity. Getting debts under control before they become unsustainable. But I do NOT understand the rationale. Why dance with the devil we don’t know? We know that you can break the back of inflation (alebit painful). Volker clearly proved that. The devil we don’t know is when and how Japan will ever really recover from their lost decade and deflationary cycle. In short, I think most Americans are in the grips of a paralytic death spiral. Anecdotally, we’re pulling back on the yoke so hard that we might be about to stall the engine. I guess my point is that it seems more prudent to keep the engine at least running and worry about getting the RPMs up when we get closer to the hills we need to overcome.

  • http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    The prophet announced the world was about to end. In preparation, he had his flock divest themselves of all their material goods. They waited and waited, but nothing changed — except now they had no material goods. The next year, the prophet again announced the world was about to end.
    .
    The federal debt has been called “unsustainable” (and/or “a ticking time bomb”) since at least 1940. See: Unsustainable. So far, it has sustained and hasn’t exploded. But we are advised to cut federal deficits to “avoid future problems associated with high levels of sovereign debt.”

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  • waltwriston

    Before anyone can answer this question, those of PIGGS and everything else. One MUST read this BIS report!

    http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1006.pdf

  • tanboontee

    Free market advocates want you to spend to boost the economy. But you don’t have to. Wild consumerism has not worked and it will not.

    Just spend on the basic necessities — live simple.

  • wisegrowth

    that article you recommend generalizes the situation in Greece and the like to larger countries like the US… I´m sorry but you can´t just generalize like that… it´s comparing apples and oranges…

    It´s the whole idea about confidence… If we just keep buying things the economy will recover… well, we did that in the 2001 recession and Greenspan made a bubble out of it…

    do you think that simple confidence can make this recession go away too…???
    Is that how your economic theories work?

  • bryanfromhouston

    Further wisegrowth, you hit on something else that I am exceptionally curious about. Why will markets gain confidence from a process that is sure to drain liquidity from economies which are stuck in a classic liquidity trap? I don’t understand how people will draw confidence from deflation causing measures? It seems to me that when folks realize that the debt is getting harder and harder to pay back it will be more confidence zapping than anything??? Or is this a situation where pink or yellow is the new black kind of thing?? :-)

blog comments powered by Disqus