Obama's Medicine for The Economy
With US unemployment soaring, spending on infrastructure and other projects is just what the doctor ordered
Barack Obama wants to spend several hundred billion dollars in each of the next two years building infrastructure, retrofitting public and private buildings to increase energy efficiency and aiding state and local governments in dealing with budget shortfalls. He thinks that this spending will boost the economy and reverse its steep decline. Obama is exactly on the mark with his plan.
The job numbers released last week removed any possible doubt that the economy is facing an extremely sharp recession. The US labour department reported that the economy lost 533,000 jobs in November. Upward revisions for the prior two months raised reported job loss over the last three-months to 1,256,000 jobs, the second highest in the post-war period.
Even this figure likely understates the extent of job loss, since the labour department imputes jobs for new firms into its data. Its formula for this imputation actually shows new firms generating more jobs in September to November of 2008 than in the same three months of last year. This imputation will be corrected next fall, and the adjustment could easily raise the pace of job loss by more than 50,000 a month.
The November data was striking because the job loss was so widespread across sectors. Construction and manufacturing continued to be hardest hit, but retail, finance and transportation also had large job losses. The only sector that continues to create jobs at a healthy pace is healthcare.
In addition to the lost jobs, the average workweek continued to shrink. The index of hours worked has shrunk at an 8% annual rate over the last three months. This would imply the equivalent of 11.2 million jobs lost over the course of a year.
This rate of job loss will push the unemployment rate over 7% by the beginning of 2009 and above 8% by the middle of the year. Without effective stimulus, the unemployment rate would likely cross 9% before the end of 2009 and could exceed 10% in 2010.
Fortunately, effective stimulus is item number one on Obama's agenda. His proposal would spend several hundred billion dollars on ready-to-go infrastructure projects such road and bridge maintenance and school repair. He would also devote funds to extending broadband reach and paying for energy-conserving retrofits of public and private buildings. The latter plan involves a huge expansion of already existing programmes.
These proposals will quickly get people back to work and inject more money into the economy. They will also provide lasting benefits in the form of better transportation, safer schools and reduced energy use.
The key question is whether the proposed package will be large enough. The economy is in a virtual free fall, as consumers are sharply curtailing spending in response to the loss of $6tn in housing wealth and more than $8tn in stock wealth.
In addition to the plunge in consumer spending, the bubble in non-residential construction has burst, which means that all segments of the construction industry are now contracting. State and local governments are also making cutbacks, and trade is likely to be a drag on growth as the surge in the dollar makes our exports less competitive and worldwide recession reduces demand.
For these reasons, we will need to spend considerably more money to boost the economy than what Obama outlined in his package. Additional spending should include aid to state and local governments to offset revenue shortfalls, increased spending on unemployment insurance, food stamps, heating oil assistance and other programmes to help laid off workers through the slump, and healthcare.
It appears as though Obama will try to get a healthcare reform bill through Congress in the first year of his presidency. While a healthcare package will almost certainly save money over the long run by wringing waste out of the system, it will cost money in its first years as coverage is extended to cover the uninsured and new systems of payments and cost control are established. Given the economy's current weakness, these upfront expenses can be another source of stimulus to the economy.
We could also take advantage of the downturn to promote efforts to make workplaces more family friendly with paid family leave and sick days. While these measures can largely pay for themselves in the long run, adjusting business practices can be a cost that smaller businesses are ill-equipped to bear in the short run.
The federal government can promote family friendly workplaces by extending temporary tax credits, either directly or through state governments, to help smaller businesses meet stronger standards. The 40-hour workweek ended up being one of the dividends from the Great Depression. Rules that guarantee workers some amount of paid family leave and paid sick leave should be a dividend from the current downturn.
It would be difficult to spend too much on stimulus given the steepness of the current downturn. We should try to ensure that the money is well spent and that it will produce lasting benefits for people and the economy. This appears to be exactly Obama's agenda.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
10 Comments so far
Show Allmikep finally said it. Progressives seem so used to huge sums going out to corporate pimps that any money going to a blue collar slob (like me, a garbage man) is a good thing. Where does this money come from? We either borrow or we print. Borrow creates huge debt which means huge interest payments. Printing creates huge inflation and huge debt anyway. The real danger in all these handouts... whether it be the banksters on wallstreet or autoworkers in detroit... it that at some point the world will lose faith in our currency, dump our securities and bonds on the market en masse because they will realize we can't pay our debt and that we don't produce anything, so then our dollar will be worthless. Literally overnight we could become a third world country.
It's strange because during the core of the Bush years the left leaning economists like Baker and Krugman did a great job of cutting through the jargon and exposing the terrible policies of the republicans. Now they embrace the bailouts without any mention the consequences. I've actually found that the libertarian economists are the only ones that are being honest about the potential for a Weimar Germany/Zimbawe type hyper-inflation.
The progressive economists also won't talk about the federal reserve and the debt-based monetary system we live in, which, at it's core is the most unjust aspect of our lives. I don't like to subscribe to conspiracy theories... but this all seems a little too conspicuous. And it's happening so fast... The Shock Doctrine in full effect I guess.
MikeP and Sioux Rose certainly make sense to me, and I had found Dean Baker seeming [odd] with this article of his. I suppose it's one strike against CEPR.net that he's committed, but maybe CEPR isn't very committed to critical and honest analysis and communication. I thought it was, but haven't read many articles from CEPR writers, so could've been previously mistaken without knowing it.
Well, I'll try to remember that he's certainly sometimes partial or negligent in his analyses or reporting; and it shouldn't be difficult to remember.
Obama might make things better, but the next one may make things worse.
Are you tired of representative government yet?
http://ni4d.us/
Just take our money back from the Wall Street Brokeners and the Main Street War Profiteers. Or ELSE!
In the absence of sound environmental and consumer protection regulations and a heavily regulated financial industry, none of this growth will provide any long term remedy.
Obama's Economic Solution -- Grow
Grow to what? Doesn't matter, just grow. Whether democrat or republican, liberal or conservative, left or right, just grow. Why the emphasis on growth?
http://theformofmoney.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2008/11/16/3979742.html
It's a new day, and these talking points about the replacement chimp's plans, schemes, strategies all ring hollow. O'Bama is a construct installed in the oval orifice by the elite establishment through propaganda manipulation. The crisis is upon us, created by the elites. Everyone knows this. And yet the pundits continue to dispense the koolaid. Now in the so-called progressive press. Enough!
Astonishingly poor economics from someone who should know better. Read it again, folks. Not a single word about how this is going to be paid for. Not one. The idea is to just write endless blank checks on future generations. No mention of the fact that financing this through deficit financing means more increases in the national debt, and massive payouts in interest to corporate interests. A $600 billion dollar plan financed through borrowing means a total tab, including interest, of $1.2 trillion, half of which goes to corporate bankers, aka Friends of Barack. No mention in this of, say, cutting the military budget to pay for it, or tax increases or anything else. That means in the long run there will be $600 billion less available to pay for infrastructure, health care and other things. It's a short-term payoff, and a long-term disaster. Basically the same policy Bush used to finance his wars: Just pretend they don't cost anything, no tax increases necessary. We'lljust let future generations pay for it, god knows how.
The idea of investing in the nation's infrastructure is great. It's just what we need. But it has to be paid for. Borrowing money to pay for this on the assumption that the economy will improve and then tax revenues will come into pay the bills makes as much sense as borrowing money to buy real estate on the assumption that prices will keep going up forever and forever. And we know how that worked out.
At this rate we could very easily have a $20 TRILLION dollar debt by the end of Obama's term. Maybe even more.
The Fed just prints more money to pay for it, just like they printed a few trillion in the last month to give to the banks. Of course we still have to borrow this money from the Fed... How do we pay for this interest? The economy must grow grow grow... but that's Capitalism folks.
Solution: Nationalize the Federal Reserve.
“Give me control of a nation’s money supply and I care not who makes its laws”
--Amschel Rothschild
Sioux Rose
MIKE P: Thank you for pre-empting me (LOL) by stating the glaring omission that I, too, noted. Like you, the logical places I saw gathering the stream of funds necessary for the investments Mr. Baker articulated would include closing some of our 700 plus military bases, going after offshore tax havens of the rich, and for God's sake, adjusting tax policy so that some semblance of sanity is involved. OR invite the upper crust to forego their social security. They need it like a hole in the head if they're in the upper brackets, and seeing the country convulse with an economy hemoragghing jobs as stocks and real estate lose value, they can make a patriotic contribution. What percentage of this financial elite supported the war of choice, or agreed with politicians as they erased the firewall between the banks and naked speculators?