(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why Amazon.com Could Kill the Entire Economy

Tags

Amazon.com, bubble decade, bubbles, consumption, credit, Financial Crisis, gig economy, Great Depression, Great Recession, Henry George School of Social Science, housing, housing bubble, production, productivity, Robin Gaster, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Yesterday I was in New York City, on one of my monthly trips to attend board meetings of the Henry George School of Social Science, an economic research and educational institute I serve as a Trustee. And beforehand, I was privileged to moderate a school seminar focusing on the possibly revolutionary economic as well as social and cultural implications of Amazon.com’s move into book publishing.

You can watch the eye-opening presentation by economic and technology consultant Robin Gaster here, but I’m posting this item for another reason: It’s an opportunity to spotlight and explore a little further two Big Think questions raised toward the event’s end.

The first concerns what Amazon’s overall success means for the rough balance that any soundly structured economic needs between consumption and production. As known by RealityChek readers, consumption’s over-growth during the previous decade deserves major blame for the terrifying financial crisis and ensuing Great Recession – whose longer term effects have included the weakest (though longest) economic recovery in American history. (See, e.g., here.)

Simply put, the purchases (in particular of homes) by too many Americans way outpaced their ability to finance this spending responsibly, artificially and unprecedentedly cheap credit eagerly offered by the country’s foreign creditors and the Federal Reserve filled the gap. But once major repayment concerns (inevitably) surfaced, the consumption boom was exposed as a mega-bubble that proceeded to collapse and plunge the entire world economy into the deepest abyss since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

As also known by RealityChek regulars, U.S. consumption nowadays isn’t much below the dangerous and ultimately disastrous levels it reached during the Bubble Decade. And one of the points made by Gaster yesterday (full disclosure: he’s a personal friend as well as a valued professional colleague) is that by using its matchless market power to squeeze its supplier companies in industry after industry to provide their goods (and services, in the case of logistics companies) at the lowest possible prices, Amazon has delivered almost miraculous benefits to consumers (not only record low prices, but amazing convenience). But this very success may be threatening the ability of the economy’s productive dimension to play its vital role in two ways.

First, it may drive producing businesses out of business by denying them the profitability needed to survive over any length of time. Second, Amazon’s success may encourage so many of its suppliers to stay afloat by cutting labor costs so drastically that it prevents the vast majority of consumers who are also workers from financing adequate levels of consumption with their incomes, not via unsustainable borrowing. Indeed, as Gaster noted, it may push many of these suppliers to adopt Amazon’s practice of turning as much of it own enormous workforce into gig employees – i.e., workers paid bare bones wages and denied both benefits and any meaningful job security. And that can only undermine their ability to finance consumption responsibly and sustainably. 

I tried to identify a possible silver lining: The pricing pressures exerted by Amazon could force many of its suppliers to compensate, and preserve and even expand their profits, by boosting productivity. Such efficiency improvements would be an undeniable plus for the entire economy, and historically, anyway, they’ve helped workers, too, by creating entirely new industries and related new opportunities (along, eventually, with higher wages). Gaster was somewhat skeptical, and I can’t say I blame him. History never repeats itself exactly.

But to navigate the future successfully, Americans will need to know what’s emerging in the present. And when it comes to the economic impact of a trail-blazing, disruption-spreading corporate behemoth like Amazon, I can think of only one better place to start than Gaster’s presentation yesterday –  his upcoming book on the subject. I’ll be sure to plug it here on RealityChek as soon as it’s out.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: America’s Productivity Blahs Continue

Tags

bubble decade, Financial Crisis, Great Depression, labor productivity, manufacturing, multi-factor productivity, non-farm business, productivity, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Although productivity is widely seen by informed students of the U.S. economy as the biggest key to ensuring the nation’s prosperity over the longest run, the release of the government’s new figures on these measures of efficiency rarely generates many headlines. Last week was no exception, but as always, they’re worth considering in detail.

In this case, last Thursday’s new report on labor productivity – the most current but narrower of the two measures  — were most notable not for the preliminary estimate of the results for the first quarter of this year (which we’ll summarize below), but for revisions going back to 2013. And unfortunately, these resulted in little change to the feeble performance already reported in creating a unit of output per each person hour worked. Indeed, for manufacturing, the revisions amounted to a not-negligible downgrade.

Here are the two sets of figures for annual percentage gains in labor productivity between 2013 and 2017 for the non-farm business sector – the government’s main proxy for the entire American economy.

  Previous results                                                              Revised results

2013 +0.3 percent                                                               +0.3 percent

2014 +1.0 percent                                                               +1.0 percent

2015 +1.3 percent                                                               +1.2 percent

2016  -0.1 percent                                                                          0

2017 +1.2 percent                                                                +1.3 percent

Like I said, no important differences here. In fact, on net, the revisions brighten the picture marginally. Not so for manufacturing:

  Previous results                                                                Revised results

2013 +0.9 percent                                                                 +0.9 percent

2014    0                                                                                        0

2015 +0.2 percent                                                                 +0.3 percent

2016 +0.4 percent                                                                 -0.4 percent

2017 +0.7 percent                                                                +0.4 percent 

Here we see a marked weakening, especially for the last two years. And the extent of manufacturing’s lousy record is even clearer from comparisons among the current economic recovery and its two predecessors.

non-farm business                                                                  manufacturing

90s expansion: (2Q 1991 to 1Q 2001) +23.25 percent          +45.86 percent

bubble expansion (4Q 2001 to 4Q 2007) +16.03 percent      +30.23 percent

current expansion: (2Q 2009 to present)  +9.70 percent          +9.69 percent

Not only has labor productivity growth slowed much more dramatically in manufacturing than in the rest of the economy between the expansion of the 2000s – which of course ended in the worst national and global financial crisis since the Great Depression — and the current expansion. Manufacturing labor productivity actually has been growing more slowly in absolute terms during this recovery than non-farm business labor productivity. And it’s not as if non-farm business labor productivity has been killing it.

Those preliminary results for the first quarter of this year extend this narrative. On a quarter-to-quarter basis, both non-farm business labor productivity and manufacturing labor productivity increased – by 0.7 percent and 0.5 percent at an annual rate, respectively. But the revisions revealed a major slowdown in manufacturing labor productivity growth on a quarterly basis (from a downwardly revised — and kind of fishy — 4.5 percent on an annual basis) and a slight pickup in non-farm business productivity growth (from no growth at all at the end of last year).

The latest results for the broader measure of productivity growth – multi-factor productivity, which includes a range of inputs broader than just worker hours – showed a small uptick, too. So even though they’re not as current as the labor numbers, maybe we’re seeing the beginnings of lasting improvement in productivity growth generally speaking. But as the recovery-to-recovery data still make clear, the United States still has a long way to go before it genuinely shakes off its productivity blahs.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Krugman’s Trade Confusion

Tags

Alfred E. Eckes, allies, China, Europe, export-led growth, foreign policy, Great Depression, Japan, Mexico, New York Times, Paul Krugman, Russia, Smoot-Hawley Tariff, South Korea, tariffs, Trade, trade surpluses, {What's Left of) Our Economy

You have to hand it to Paul Krugman. Who else but the New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist could contribute to one of the hoariest myths surrounding American trade policy, and then turn around and debunk another vital canard? And all within a week!

Two days ago, Krugman repeated a common but wildly off-base talking point long used by trade cheerleaders when he wrote that a trade critic who won the U.S. presidency “would find it very hard to do anything much about globalization — not because it’s technically or economically impossible, but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic, foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious.”

Fears of significant foreign blowback have always been comical from an economic standpoint because so much of the rest of the world has depended on so much of its growth for so long on amassing trade surpluses with the United States. Endlessly voiced fears of “trade wars” endlessly ignore how self-destructive it would be for these foreign trade powers to engage in protracted economic conflict with their best customer.

The contention about diplomatic costs is no more serious. Of course, the Chinese would complain. But since the trillions of dollars of surpluses Beijing has racked up with America have so lavishly helped finance China’s military buildup, any trade overhaul could only enhance U.S. national security.

America’s allies would grouse also. But since most are in fact protectorates that would struggle – at best – to defend themselves without U.S. military support, which ones are likely to hit back at Washington? The Europeans, who worry about mounting Russian ambitions, but whose continued flirtation with recession is bound to keep restraining already inadequate spending? The Japanese and South Koreans, who face a Chinese adversary at least as powerful, and comparably dismal economic outlooks? And how much meaningful diplomatic retaliation could be expected from low-income, export-dependent Mexico, which more than two decades after the North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect still relies on the American market for 80 percent of its foreign goods sales?

Much more convincing was Krugman’s post five days earlier, which took on the Smoot-Hawley fallacy. As the author noted, a mainstay of the case for current trade policies is the belief that any interference with trade flows will start the U.S. and world economies down the slippery slope toward recessions. And as he has also noted, the American Smoot-Hawley tariff is widely blamed for triggering or deepening the Great Depression of the 1930s (and, he could have mentioned, the political and military horrors that followed).

So kudos to Krugman for pointing out that “trade fell a lot between 1929 and 1933, but that was almost entirely a consequence of the Depression, not a cause,” and for spotlighting research making clear that “Trade actually fell faster during the early stages of the 2008 Great Recession than it did after 1929.” Incidentally, much more data debunking the standard Smoot-Hawley claims can be found in this scholarly history of U.S. trade policy by Ohio University’s Alfred E. Eckes.

Neither of these Krugman posts proves (wittingly or not) that big changes in America’s longstanding trade strategies are essential. But if it’s this easy to shred arguments this central to the trade status quo for so many decades, it’s time to start wondering what’s left of the case for standing pat.

 

Following Up: Government is Back as a Significant U.S. Growth Engine

Tags

bubbles, Following Up, GDP, government spending, Great Depression, Great Recession, gross domestic product, inflation-adjusted growth, inventories, public sector, recovery

If the U.S. economy was really healthy, the closer you looked at the data, the more signs of real vigor you’d see. What a drag, then, to report that evidence of continued, and even increased bubble-ization keeps abounding under the hood.

Last week, I posted on how the details of the latest government report on the gross domestic product (GDP) and its makeup makes clear that the nation’s expansion today is nearly as dependent on the dangerous combination of personal spending and housing as it was during the previous bubble decade – which of course came to an end with the terrifying financial crisis of 2007-2008. Today the trend I’ll highlight is the economy’s growing reliance on government spending, rather than private sector economic activity, for desperately needed growth.

As we saw last week, the Commerce Department’s first (of several) estimates of inflation-adjusted growth in the third quarter of this year came in at a dreary 1.50 percent at an annualized rate. And as a result, the economy remained excessively dominated by that toxic spending-housing combination that helped trigger the crisis. But government spending also showed up as a major growth engine. In fact, it was responsible for more of the quarterly increase in economic activity than at any time since the current recovery was in its earliest stages, and government stimulus was still playing an outsized role propping up the economy.

According to the Commerce Department, government spending generated 0.30 percentage points of that 1.50 percent growth – or 20 percent. In other words, had government spending levels simply remained the same, third quarter real annualized growth would have been a mere 1.20 percent. The last time the public sector played such a prominent role was the third quarter of 2009, just after the official end of the last recession. Then, government spending was responsible for 0.48 percentage points of that period’s real annualized 1.30 percent GDP increase – or 36.92 percent. So this spending kept growth from falling under the one percent mark (to 0.82 percent).

In fact, the public sector has now been a net contributor to growth for four of the last six quarters, which hasn’t been the case since the nation was mired in the last, historically painful, recession. To some extent, government’s renewed growth prominence looks like a reversion to an historic mean. For nearly all of the current recovery, reductions in after-inflation government spending had been subtracting from growth.

At the same time, the current expansion is now more than six years old. That is, the economy is more than six years from the days when it arguably needed artificial life support. So even accounting for a return to normal government spending patterns – or at least a halt in spending cuts – you’d think (and hope!) that growth not only would pick up, but that the private sector would be shouldering more of the load. It seems the reverse scenario is unfolding.

One cautionary note needs to be raised. The third quarter’s growth performance was also held back by a big liquidation of business inventories – the biggest in absolute and relative terms since the fourth quarter of 2012. Then, inventory liquidation subtracted a huge 1.54 percentage points from the quarter’s barely detectable 0.10 percent annualized growth. In the third quarter of this year, it subtracted 1.44 percentage points from the final 1.30 percent growth figure, meaning that had inventories simply stayed the same, the economy would have expanded by a much better 2.74 percent annual rate after inflation.

Nonetheless, 2.74 percent growth – after a Great Recession that was the nation’s worst downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s – isn’t exactly killing it. Moreover, several previous big inventory draw-downs haven’t presaged faster growth during the recovery. That’s because it’s hard to know beforehand whether these decisions are being taken because businesses want to restock their shelves with newer, better goods in anticipation of stronger demand going forward, or because businesses fear that their customers aren’t likely to spend enough to justify inventory levels they have built up.

So far, the continued slow pace of growth signals that the latter explanation has been the most accurate. That’s no guarantee that the recovery isn’t on the verge of picking up (although an especially on-target group of forecasters don’t see that happening in the current fourth quarter). But it does make clear that the heaviest burden of proof is on those who still insist that the economy is getting stronger and sounder – or even that it’s bound to one of these days.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Real Economics of Currency Manipulation

Tags

central banks, currency manipulation, currency wars, devaluation, exchange rates, fast track, Federal Reserve, Financial Times, Great Depression, John Plender, Obama, protectionism, QE, Robert Aliber, TPA, TPP, Trade, Trade Promotion Authority, Trans-Pacific Partnership, University of Chicago, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Since Congress is finished with its fight over fast track negotiating authority for President Obama, and the next big trade deal in the offing – the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – is still being negotiated, issues like foreign currency manipulation have virtually disappeared from the media.

That’s more than a shame, since the effects of China’s longstanding exchange-rate protectionism – which gives Chinese-made goods artificial price advantages in all global markets – still weigh on American manufacturing production and employment.  And let’s not forget that Mr. Obama and Congress’ Republican leadership successfully beat back efforts to include strong disciplines on manipulation in the TPP – even though prospective TPP member Japan looks like another huge manipulator.

Here’s hoping, though, that when these subjects return to the spotlight, decision-makers will read John Plender’s excellent post in yesterday’s Financial Times explaining why this predatory practice needs to be abolished – and not just for America’s sake.

Plender makes two main contributions to the heated currency manipulation debate. First, he explains that the main argument against curbing manipulation is a straw man. It doesn’t much matter whether national currencies weaken because the governments in question are explicitly seeking trade advantages or not. It’s true, as manipulation soft-liners note ad nauseam, that the recent spate of central bank monetary easing policies pursued all around the world generally has been bound to weaken their countries’ currencies. It’s also true that America’s own Federal Reserve has eased massively itself – though the dollar has remained strong over the long run partly because of its unique status as the world’s predominant currency, and partly because the U.S. economy has outperformed that of most other major powers lately.

But as Plender notes, the distortions to trade flows take place all the same. He could have added, as opposed to only suggesting, a point I keep making: Monetary easing by a trade- and export-led economy (like China’s or Japan’s) is much likelier to stem from trade-related concerns than easing by a consumption-led economy like the United States. (Other considerations let America off the hook, too.)

His second contribution: observing that the universally condemned currency devaluations that helped deepen the Great Depression were by no means all made to beggar trade partners. Yet as trade policy critics are constantly reminded, trade flows suffered anyway. In fact, Plender cites this stunning claim from University of Chicago economist Robert Aliber: measured in terms of the worldwide trade imbalances that have resulted, “today’s currency wars are more severe than those of the 1930s.”

Indeed, this is a great opportunity to revive another point I’ve made in the context of of the fast track/TPP currency manipulation debate: The devaluations of the 1930s and the economic and military calamities they brought closer taught the American and other architects of the post-World War II global economic order a seminal lesson: that such currency movements needed to be controlled in order to create and maintain a viable international trade system. Unless Mr. Obama and his fellow globalization cheerleaders now believe that this conviction was wrong, they need to make sure that U.S. policy helps end or severely punish manipulation, and finally treat genuinely free trade like a priority, not a talking point.