(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Manufacturing Job Growth Kept Slowing Last Month

Tags

737 Max, aerospace, automotive, Boeing, CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, Department of Labor, Jobs, Joe Biden, machinery, manufacturing, medical equipment, non-farm employment, pharmaceuticals, PPE, private sector, stimulus package, tariffs, trade war, Trump, vaccines, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The manufacturing employment growth slowdown that began in early summer continued in November, according to the latest monthly U.S. jobs report released by the Labor Department this morning. Moreover, industry’s cumulative employment-creation rate of increase during the CCP Virus rebound period fell further behind that of the overall American private sector.

Domestic manufacturers added a net 27,000 workers to their payrolls in November – the weakest rise since August’s 30,000. As recently as June, such industrial jobs jumped by 333,000. Moreover, revisions were slightly negative. September’s monthly 60,000 gain was unchanged, but the October improvement was reduced from 38,000 to 33,000.

In a return to early rebound-period patterns, automotive employment dominated the November picture for manufacturing, as vehicle and parts makers accounted for well over half (15,400) of the sequential payrolls expansion.

Other job-creation winners for November included plastics and rubber products (4,600 of the total 5,000 job gains for the non-durable goods super-sector); furniture (3,100); and miscellaneous durable goods manufacturing (2,500 – this category includes much virus-related medical equipment, more on which below).

Monthly employment losses in manufacturing were small by sector, but widespread. The worst results were turned in by fabricated metals products (2,000), the big chemicals sector (1,900), primary metals (1,700), and apparel (1,500).

Somewhat encouragingly, the large bellwether machinery sector managed to add to its payrolls, but the increase was just 1,900, and the October rise was revised down from 3,900 to 3,000.

As of November, manufacturing had regained 764,000 (56.05 percent) of the 1.363 million jobs lost during the worst of the pandemic-induced downturn in March and April. Its employment drop during those months represented 10.61 percent of its payrolls level in February – the last pre-virus month.

That rate of improvement is still faster than that of the economy overall: Non-farm payrolls (the Labor Department’s U.S. employment universe) have recovered 12.326 million (55.62 percent) of their March and April losses.

But this economy-wide total was held back by the 99,000 public sector jobs lost in November, due overwhelmingly to the federal government’s release of 93,000 workers hired temporarily to help conduct the 2020 Census. At the same time, state and local government employment levels were little changed last month, and they could wind up implementing major job cuts unless Washington approves CCP Virus relief for them. So the cumulative manufacturing numbers may well continue looking better than the overall non-farm payrolls numbers for the next few months at least, but for all the wrong reasons.

And accordingly, as of November, the overall private sector has regained 12.670 million (59.79 percent) of the 21.191 million jobs it shed during the worst pandemic months.

The employment figures for the CCP Virus-related medical manufacturing categories only go through October, but given the scale of the pandemic and the demand for these products, their jobs gains have been surprisingly negligible since the worst of the virus-induced recession.

For example, the broad pharmaceuticals and medicines sector added only 100 workers on net in October, and has increased its payrolls by only 0.74 percent since February and 1.01 percent since April. It’s true that its job losses were minimal (0.26 percent in March and April). But the recent increases still look meager given the nation’s months-long health emergency.

Within this category, the sub-sector including vaccines hired 600 net new employees in October, bringing its jobs gains to 1.26 percent since February, and 3.42 percent since April – also reflecting modest job losses suffered in February and March. And of course, due to recent announcements of promising vaccines and the likelihood of huge production ramps, the employment picture here will bear close watching in the months ahead.

The employment performance of the manufacturing category containing PPE goods like face masks, gloves, and medical gowns has been stronger. In October, its payrolls expanded by 400, and they’re up 7.38 percent since February, and actually grew slightly during March and April, too.

Of course, numerous wild cards are likely to impact domestic industry’s job-creation record going forward. But their net effect is difficult to forecast now, for any number of reasons. How much bigger will the virus’ second wave become? Will pandemic relief be approved in Washington, and how big will any package be? Will economic growth continue whether such legislation is passed or not?

That vaccine sector doesn’t look big enough to affect overall manufacturing job totals. But resumed production of Boeing’s safety-troubled 737 Max model and of aerospace manufacturing generally due to an overall national and global recovery would be substantial. And finally, will apparent President-elect Joe Biden lift any of President Trump’s steep, sweeping China tariffs? With this many uncertainties still clouding the picture, it could be many months before a manufacturing New Normal emerges – and with it, the prospect of figuring out exactly how healthy or sickly domestic industry’s fundamentals really are.

Im-Politic: Biden as National Soul-Saver?

Tags

cancel culture, CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, Democrats, election 2020, illegal aliens, Im-Politic, Immigration, Joe Biden, left-wing authoritarianism, Michelle Obama, morality, politics, progressives, stimulus package, Trump, Trump World, wokeness, Wuhan virus

This Joe Biden thing about “a battle for the soul of America” and “restoring the soul of America” — I’ve never liked the self-righteousness of it from the start. And the more I’ve thought about it since Election Day, and especially as the odds of his becoming President seem to grow, the more worried I get, and the more troubled you should be, too. Two reasons stand out.

First, it’s far from clear that the Democratic nominee has thought through the demographics of his ambition. It’s of course clear that what he means by soul-restoring is that Donald Trump’s election as President – or perhaps more specifically his supposed trafficking in racist and other despicable dog whistles – means that something about America morally has gone badly off-track. But what and among whom exactly? Surely he doesn’t believe that his own soul needs to be restored. Ditto for other Trump opponents.

But what about Trump supporters? Let’s assume for a moment that his personal ethical antennae are finely tuned enough to guide the nation’s as a whole. He’s now promising to be a President for all Americans – including the Trumpers. But if their souls are at best badly corrupted (and at worst, no longer exist at all), then why should he take any of their concerns into account, at least until some semblance of what he considers an acceptable moral fabric is somehow regenerated?

As a result, unless he believes that most of Trump World has simply been duped, and that the scales will steadily drop from their eyes after he’s out of the White House, his recent urging that his compatriots recognize that “We are not enemies. We are Americans” is just as incoherent. After all, when one side of a political contest has no collective soul, then clearly their differences with their moral superiors entail more than (presumably acceptable) disagreements over, say, levels of taxing and spending, or the terms of a trade agreement, or defining foreign policy interests. After all, people lacking a soul, or whose soul is badly broken, are far worse, or qualitatively more difficult to contend with. Arguably, they aren’t even human at all, but something genuinely debased. How can reason and persuasion possibly work with the likes of them?

The second reason for concern about Biden’s rhetoric follows logically from the first. Precisely because consigning large numbers of Americans into the soul-less or broken-soul category clearly precludes dealing with them via conventional political means, this belief indicates that the former Vice President doesn’t even believe that he’s operating in the political realm at all – at least when it comes to Trump supporters. Instead, he’s an agent of virtue itself whose objectives are spiritual – and thereby rule out the idea of significant, and perhaps any compromise.

To be sure, there will remain areas of public policy where meaningful compromise is relatively – e.g., taxing and spending and particularly economic stimulus while the CCP Virus is in pandemic mode. But as has been seen in the stimulus debate so far, both parties in Congress have tried to use such legislation to advance goals not so conducive to give-and-take (e.g., the question of whether illegal aliens should receive any relief).

Everything known about Biden’s temperament also indicates that he’s a compromiser, not a crusader, by nature. Indeed, at various times during the campaign, that’s what he’s claimed he would do.

But there also remain areas of public policy that have never been conducive to meaningful compromise – like immigration, and social issues like abortion. In this vein, one of my own principal worries is still that whatever Biden thinks personally, he’ll lack the spine to resist progressive Democrats pushing their increasingly authoritarian impulses and consequent determination to make Cancel Culture The American Way (along with ever more woke Big Business).

He may also lack much interest in pushing back against the kind of anger and sanctimony and intolerance expressed so congently yesterday by, e.g., Michelle Obama – who tweeted, “Let’s remember that tens of millions of people voted for the status quo, even when it meant supporting lies, hate, chaos, and division.”

Perhaps because the former First Lady is hardly the most extreme member of the Democratic Party, she also added, “We’ve got a lot of work to do to reach out to these folks in the years ahead and connect with them on what unites us.” But she deserves to be asked the same question posed in this post to Biden – from this standpoint, how much important common ground could exist with supporters of “lies, hate, chaos” etc.? Moreover, Biden himself has said that this soul-restoring business was what motivated him to seek the presidency again in the first place. (See the article in The Hill linked above.) So maybe lately there’s a lot more common ground between him and the progressive authoritarians than widely realized.

Here’s one way Biden could begin to ease concerns like this whether he becomes the next President or not. He could spell out in reasonably concrete terms just which of the motivations that have fueled two massive national Trump votes he does view as legitimate – and therefore where he’s ready in principle respond with more than tokenism. Unless and until he does, literally tens of millions of Americans will be perfectly justified in assuming that Biden’s talk of national unification and reconciliation is completely hollow, that they’ll return to Forgotten American status (and maybe worse), and that their own and the nation’s best future hopes rest with making sure he’s a one-term President, too.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Green Shoots of Recovery in New York City?

Tags

(What's Left of) Our Economy, CCP Virus, consumer spending, coronavirus, COVID 19, election 2020, healthcare, Jobs, New York City, restaurants, stimulus package, subsidized private sector, The Partnership for New York City, Wuhan virus

Since I’m a New York City native, I’m a New York City fan. (At least I think that logically follows!) Therefore, one of the most disturbing trends I’ve followed in the CCP Virus era concerns the especially serious troubles the City has suffered this year, economically as well as medically.

I still haven’t made up my mind about whether New York has been pushed by the virus into a period of long-term decline, or whether we’ll see a return to normal once the pandemic has been brought under control (insert your own definition of this goal).

Yet for the last two months, whenever the case for pessimism seems to become conclusive (see, e.g., so much of the evidence in this recent New York Times piece), an email appears in my inbox from a friend who sends me the regular updates on the City’s economy from the Partnership for New York City.

The organization, comprised of hundreds of New York’s most prominent business leaders, says it seeks to “build bridges between the leaders of global industries and government, drawing on the resources and expertise of business to help solve public challenges, create jobs and strengthen neighborhoods throughout the five boroughs.”

Whatever you think of its sincerity or effectiveness or overall objectivity, the data it regularly releases tracks with statistics I monitor from other sources, so it seems reliable to me. And some of the figures it’s presented lately have been major stunners.

For example, as early as late July, the Partnership reported, consumer spending in the City had nearly returned to 2019 levels. In late March, it had plunged to 53 percent below them. Just as unexpected – the big laggards were New York’s wealthiest boroughs, Manhattan and Brooklyn (although maybe the Manhattan results weren’t so surprising, given its dependence on business from office workers, so many of whom weren’t commuting to their offices).

According to a late-September bulletin from the Partnership, not only had New York’s private sector employment increased on month, but “the city has outpaced U.S. private sector job growth for three consecutive months.” The leader here was the healthcare sector – which RealityChek regulars know are only partly private sector jobs, given the industry’s massive dependence on government subsidies. (See, e.g., here.) But the same problem distorts the national figures, so this finding still legitimately counts as a pleasant surprise.

Even more surprising: “209 business licenses were issued in September, up 11% from 189 licenses issued in August. The number of new business licenses has increased for four consecutive months and is up 260% since May.”

Of course, this number of businesses is less-than-tiny for such a gargantuan metropolis. But any signs of entrepreneurship these days are encouraging, and support the even more encouraging possibility that the City remains a powerful magnet for individuals with talent and drive.

No one can doubt that New York still faces massive challenges going forward, especially since the onset of winter, and the growth of lockdown fatigue, means that a second virus wave may hit. Moreover, the colder the weather gets, the greater the struggles of a hugely important restaurant sector that’s been able collectively to hang on with its fingernails thanks to regulatory reforms that helped eateries expand outdoor dining since late spring.

The fiscal situation seems dire as well – unless Democrats sweep to power in next week’s national elections and approve the kind of big aid package for cities and states that Republicans have generally resisted. (The continuing deadlock over a broader relief bill, which could drag on if Republicans retain the White House and/or Senate, obviously could remain a big problem, too.)

Even then, the City will be hard-pressed going forward to fund needed services adequately without the kinds of tax increases that tend to drive taxpayers away, cuts in more controversial outlays that tend to antagonize powerful constituencies like public employee unions, or some combination of both.

For now, however, these Partnership reports have been revealing impressive resilience in the New York City economy. And it bears remembering that, over any significant period of time, so far no one has ever made any serious money betting against it.

Making News: Back on National Radio Tonight, a New Podcast…& More!

Tags

Angela Merkel, Cato Journal, CCP Virus, China, collusion, coronavirus, COVID 19, election 2020, Germany, Gordon G. Chang, Joe Biden, journalism, Making News, manufacturing, Market Wrap with Moe Ansari, natural gas, Nord Stream 2, presidential debate, recession, recovery, reshoring, Russia, stimulus package, Ted Galen Carpenter, The John Batchelor Show, Trade, trade war, Trump, Trump-Russia, Wuhan virus

I’m pleased to announce that I’m scheduled to return to national radio tonight when I guest on The John Batchelor Show.  The subjects for John, co-host Gordon G. Chang, and me will be China, trade, manufacturing, and the election.

The pandemic is still forcing John and Gordon to pre-record segments, so I’m not yet sure about air-time.  But it seems that you can listen live to the show on-line at this all-purpose link starting at 9 PM EST.  And of course, if you can’t tune in, I’ll post a link to the podcast as soon as one’s available.

In addition, yesterday, I was interviewed on the popular Market Wrap with Moe Ansari radio show on the election (including the debate!), trade policy, the future of the entire U.S. economy, the fate of CCP Virus relief legislation, and a surprising recent example of collusion with Russia.  To listen to the podcast, click here and then on the show with my name on it.  My segment starts at about the 23:38 mark.

Finally, my friend Ted Galen Carpenter has just published in the Cato Journal a fascinating piece on the history of U.S. news coverage of U.S.-China relations – which certainly has seen its ups and downs in recent decades.  It was great, moreover, to see Ted cite two of my writings along the way.  Here’s the link.

And keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: New Fed Figures Show the U.S. Manufacturing Recovery is Proceeding Nicely

Tags

automotive, CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, Federal Reserve, inflation-adjusted output, lockdowns, manufacturing, manufacturing production, real growth, shutdown, stimulus package, Trump tariffs, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

It’s not apparent from the overall numbers, but the most important takeaway from this morning’s monthly Federal Reserve report on U.S. manufacturing production is that American industry has continued a steady comeback from the ravages of the CCP Virus and the government-induced shutdown of much of the U.S. economy. And the continuing healthy pace of this comeback is all the more impressive given the stop-and-start nature of so many of the economic restrictions imposed by Washington, D.C. and by the states and localities, and given the recent uncertainty about a new virus-relief bill.

The overall Fed numbers, as indicated above, do show a manufacturing bounceback that’s losing noteworthy steam. In August (the latest available data month), inflation-adjusted manufacturing output grew by 0.96 percent sequentially. That’s definitely a weaker pace than July’s growth (now pegged at 3.97 percent on month), much weaker than June’s 7.64 percent monthly burst, and well short of May’s 3.91 monthly percent production rise.

Grounds for encouragement, though, are justified even by these aggregate figures, as revisions for recent months generally were positive, and July’s was really positive – that month’s previously estimated manufacturing real growth was 3.41 percent.

But the best and most important news comes from the numbers on manufacturing production outside the automotive sector. As known by RealityChek regulars, the wild sequential swings in output from vehicle and parts makers have dominated the Fed manufacturing production reports for nearly the entire CCP virus period. (See., e.g., last month’s post on this subject.) So important though automotive is – both because of its size per se and because it affects the rest of its industry due to its big domestic supply chain – the non-auto results arguably provide a more accurate picture of U.S. manufacturing’s fundamentals. And this picture looks remarkably good, and still displays significant momentum.

Ex-auto, as the cognoscenti put it, constant dollar manufacturing production increased by 1.40 percent on month in August. So since that’s much faster than overall manufacturing’s performance (up 0.96 percent) that means automotive output fell (by 2.13 percent, specifically).

The August sequential improvement for ex-auto manufacturing, moreover, isn’t dramatically lower than July’s (1.93 percent). And it compares pretty well with June’s (now estimated at 3.82 percent) and May’s (now judged to be 2.12 percent).

Even better, all the pre-July results have been revised up except for May’s.

When all is said and done, the August Fed report underscores just how resilient domestic manufacturing has been despite the formidable CCP Virus challenges (which also include major economic slowdowns in the foreign markets U.S. industry has always relied on for much of its sales). As of August, overall price-adjusted American manufacturing output was just 6.39 percent below its levels in February (the final month before virus effects began impacting the economy). Manufacturing ex-auto’s real production was just 7.04 percent less than in February. And automotive’s after-inflation production was a mere 1.98 percent below that February benchmark.

And another factor to consider: Since China’s has been the world’s first major economy to resume growth since the virus struck, and since its recent growth has been so markedly export-led, think of how much worse U.S. industry’s state would be had the steep Trump tariffs on hundreds of billions of Chinese goods normally sent to the United States not been imposed, or left almost completely in place by the Phase One trade deal.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: For Now, the U.S. Manufacturing Jobs Picture is Normalizing

Tags

automotive, Employment, government workers, Jobs, manufacturing, non-farm employment, non-farm jobs, non-farm payrolls, private sector, public sector, stimulus package, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The total U.S. economy and employment pictures sure aren’t anywhere close to normal, but this morning’s official jobs report (for August) looked awfully familiar to anyone who’d been following payrolls in manufacturing before the CCP Virus struck. And the noteworthy result:  Industry continues to be a jobs outperformer during this pandemic period.     

In contrast to the enormous, and largely automotive-driven swings of previous months, U.S.-based manufacturers added 29,000 net new jobs last month compared with July’s levels. Automotive payrolls shrank by only 5,300.

Moreover, as with the overall non-farm economy (the U.S. government’s definition of the American employment universe), revisions to recent manufacturing results were slightly negative. July’s initially reported 26,000 manufacturing employment increase was revised up to 41,000, but June’s previous estimate of 357,000 (itself revised up) is now judged to have been just 333,000.

This time around, domestic industry’s biggest sequential employment winners in absolute terms were food products (up 12,100), plastics and rubber products (up 6,500), and fabricated metal products (up 5,900). The biggest losers were transportation equipment (whose 8,400 loss includes the 5,300 combined figures for vehicles and parts), non-metallic mineral products (down 4,400), and printing (down 4,100).

In all, from February (the last full month before virus-related shutdowns began dramatically depressing national economic activity) through its April bottom, manufacturing payrolls fell by 1.363 million, or 10.61 percent). Since then, industry has regained 643,000 (or 47.18 percent) of those positions. As a result, manufacturing employment is now 5.60 percent lower than in February, before the virus arrived.

Underscoring manufacturing’s relative resilience during the pandemic-induced recession, between February and April, the American private sector shed 21.191 million workers – a drop of 16.34 percent. Since then, 10.473 million net jobs have been restored (nearly half – 49.42 percent– of the total lost). As a result, private sector employment is now 8.26 percent below those pre-CCP Virus February levels.

In addition, from February through April, total non-farm employment sank by 22.34 million, or 14.64 percent. Since then, a net of 10.611 million (or 47.50 percent) of these jobs have come back, leaing non-farm payrolls 7.57 percent short of their pre-pandemic totals.

But since non-farm payrolls include public sector jobs, this performance will surely weaken if the Democratic-Republican standoff in Washington over economic stimulus stays unresolved for much longer, since one of the main bones of contention is federal aid for state and local governments whose tax revenues have been decimated by the virus and lockdowns.

Further, public sector jobs losses (and the service cuts sure to accompany them) inevitably will bleed into the private sector, as government is an important customer of what the private goods and service companies provide – both in terms of procurement, and in terms of how much government workers and their households consume.

Consequently, without a stimulus agreement, as unsatisfactory as this latest U.S. jobs report was, it might wind up being fondly remembered – including by manufacturers.

Im-Politic: The Stimulus Bill Math Just Got Incredibly Fuzzy

Tags

arithmetic, CCP Virus, CNBC.com, coronavirus, COVID 19, division, Im-Politic, math, multiplication, Nancy Pelosi, recession, stimulus package, Trump, Wuhan virus

I never dreamed that RealityChek would ever function as a math tutor, but a post yesterday on CNBC.com indicates that it’s an option I should consider. Because unless my own knowledge of numbers is even less impressive than I’ve always supposed, it looks like this major news organization, or the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, or both, could really use those services.

Here’s the passage that sent my head reeling. It deals with the negotiations between Congress’ Democrats and the Trump administration about the latest legislation intended to offer Americans aid during this deep CCP Virus-induced economic downturn:

“Democratic leaders and the Trump administration have not restarted relief talks since they collapsed earlier this month. Pelosi has put forward a more than $3 trillion rescue package, but Republicans have proposed a roughly $1 trillion plan.

“The sides have failed to find common ground.

“‘We have to try to come to that agreement now,’ Pelosi told Politico on Tuesday. She said Democrats are ‘willing to cut our bill in half to meet the needs right now.’”

“Her spokesman Drew Hammill clarified to CNBC that she was reiterating her previous stance. She has said she would start discussions again if Republicans doubled their roughly $1 trillion relief offer.”

In case you’re still wondering about the problem I’ve detected, let’s take it step-by step:

>The House Democrats approved more than $3 trillion in stimulus spending.

>The administration and Republicans in Congress want $1 trillion.

>The House Democrats have offered to settle for half of their original $3 trillion proposal, which would be $1.5 trillion

>But Pelosi says she won’t resume negotiations until the Republicans double their offer.

>Which would result in the Republicans coming back to the talks supporting $2 trillion.

>Which is $500 billion more than what the House Democrats say they’re willing to accept.

I don’t doubt that Pelosi and her office have razor-sharp political skills, and I rely on CNBC for lots of economic and especially financial news. I also know that the differences between the two parties on the stimulus package involve more than just the totals to be spent. But unless I’ve completely forgotten simple division and multiplication, regardless of what anyone thinks about the merits of this debate, it’s tough to figure out what the Democrats are trying to accomplish here, and why no one working for the Speaker or at CNBC caught a blooper that should be obvious to a third grader.

So I’d be happy to share my knowledge of elementary school arithmetic with anyone at the Speaker’s office or with the network. And because I’m well aware how smart lots of you RealityChek readers are, I’d be happy to find out whether and how I might have messed up myself.

Making News: Podcast Now On-Line of National Radio Interview on TikTok, China Strategy, Biden, & the Stimulus Negotiations

Tags

China, Congress, decoupling, election 2020, Joe Biden, Making News, Mark Meadows, Market Wrap with Moe Ansari, national security, privacy, stimulus package, tech, TikTok, Trump

I’m pleased to announce that a podcast is now on-line of an interview I did yesterday on Moe Ansari’s nationally syndicated radio show.

Click here and then scroll down a bit to the segment with my name on it to listen to a timely, informative session on three major headline issues: what President Trump is trying to accomplish with his decision to ban from U.S. markets the popular Chinese social media app TikTok; how a President Joe Biden is likely to handle China issues; and what to expect from the current White House-Congress talks on the economic stimulus package. The segment comes on at about the 23:50 mark.

And keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments.

 

Making News: National Media Cites on the Virus Vaccine Drive and the Stimulus Package Wrangle

Tags

Breitbart.com, CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, Heather Long, industrial policy, John Binder, Making News, pharmaceuticals, Seattle Times, stimulus package, The Washington Post, vaccines, Wuhan virus

I’m pleased to announce that my views on two major economic policy issues have just been featured in two leading national news publications.

In his report yesterday on the U.S. government’s efforts to help pharmaceutical companies develop a CCP Virus vaccine, Breitbart.com‘s John Binder included remarks of mine providing perspective on the latest example of what economists call “industrial policy” – team-ups between the public and private sectors to generate technological progress and ensure future U.S. prosperity.  Click here to read the article.

Moreover, last Thursday’s Washington Post piece on the debate over the next U.S. economic stimulus package contained a quote from me urging the Trump administration and Congress to “go big.”  Here’s the link.  The article, by the Post‘s Heather Long, was also reprinted in the Seattle Times on Saturday.

And keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments.

 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Is the Fed Taking Us to Economics Infinity – & Beyond?

Tags

big govenment, CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, credit, economics, Fed, Federal Reserve, finance, fiscal conservatism, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Great Depression, Great Recession, Jerome Powell, moral hazard, New Deal, stimulus package, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Since I’ve never liked recycling my own material, I’ve rarely written here on specific arguments I make on Twitter. (And I make a lot of them!) But since these times are so exceptional, and have just generated such an exceptional response from the Federal Reserve, an exception here seems more than justified. So here are three longer-than-a-tweet expressions of concern about the broadest impacts of the massive support for the everyday economy (as opposed to the financial system) just announced by the central bank in response to the CCP Virus.

The first has to do with the perils of super-easy money. Fed Chair Jerome Powell has just again made clear in remarks this morning that there’s “no limit” to the amount of credit the central bank can pump into the economy to create a “bridge” over which imperiled businesses large and small, and now state and local governments, can cross in order to return intact to “the other side” of the pandemic.

Yes there are conditions – mainly, the borrowers need to be creditworthy (though the definition of “creditworthy” has been expanded). So at least in principle, previous individual or business “bad behavior” won’t be rewarded and thereby enabled going forward – a practice economists call incurring “moral hazard.” That’s (again, in principle) different from the previous financial crisis-related bailouts, when lots of bad or incompetent behavior, especially by Wall Street and the automobile industry, was generously rewarded.

(More encouragingly, other, impressive conditions have been placed on beneficiaries of previously announced fiscal economic aid – the type provided with taxpayer money by the Executive Branch and Congress – including temporary bans on stock buybacks.)

But moral hazard doesn’t necessarily result from the behavior of apples that are already bad. The concept is so powerful (and has long been so convincing) in part because it holds that showering borrowers with easy (and now free money) tends to turn good apples bad. That’s because a credit glut greatly reduces the penalties created for poor decisions by the normal relative scarcity of capital and the price (interest rates) that lenders normally demand in order to impose some degree of discipline.

The lack of adequate discipline on borrowers is surely one big reason why the post-financial crisis economic recovery had been so historically sluggish: Capital wasn’t being used very efficiently, and therefore wasn’t creating as much output and employment as usual. Maybe, therefore, all these new stimulus programs, whether desperately needed now or not, are also setting the stage for a dreary repeat performance?

Which brings up the second issue raised by the latest Fed and other federal rescue operations: Their sheer scale, and the Powell’s “no limits” declaration strongly undercuts the most basic assumption behind the very discipline of economics: that resources will be relatively scarce. That is, there will never be enough wealth in particular to satisfy everyone’s needs, much less wants.

Think about it. If all the wealth needed or wanted could somehow be automatically summoned into existence, why would anyone have to think seriously about economic subjects at all? What would be the point of trying to figure out how to use resources most productively, or even how to distribute them most equitably?

I remain deeply skeptical about the idea that money literally “grows on trees” (as most of our ancestors would have put it). But Powell’s statement sure seems to lend it credence. Moreover, I’m among the many who have been astonished that the United States hasn’t so far had to pay the proverbial piper for all the debt that’s been created especially since financial crisis hit. So it’s entirely possible that I – and others who have fretted about the spending and lending spree the economy had already been on before the pandemic struck – have had it completely wrong.

It would still, however, seem important for economists and national leaders to make this point at least more explicitly going forward. For if it’s true, why even lend out money? Why have banks and financial markets themselves? Why shouldn’t the government just print money and distribute it – including to government agencies? Why for that matter tax anyone, rich or poor?

Just as important, if “on trees” thinking remains wrong – and possibly dangerous – folks who know what they’re talking about had better make the possible costs clear, too. Because if enough Americans become persuaded that there is indeed this kind of massive free lunch, what would stop them from demanding it? Why wouldn’t it be crazy not to? And how could elected leaders resist?

In fact, I’m also concerned about the emergence of a shorter term, more humdrum version of this situation. (This is my third worry for today.) Specifically, Powell clearly views the new Fed programs as emergency measures, which will be dialed back once the emergency is over. Similarly, at least some of the nation’s supposed fiscal conservatives are claiming that they’ve supported the sweeping anti-CCP Virus because it amounts “restitution” for all those individuals and businesses whose “property and economic rights” have been taken from them by the government decision to shut down the economy.

Nonetheless, let’s keep in mind that as former President Franklin D. Roosevelt was rolling out his New Deal programs to fight the Great Depression of the 1930s, he continually justified them as emergency measures. The President himself tried returning to his previous backing for budget balancing once some signs of recovery appeared.

His optimism, as it turned out, was premature, and helped bring on a second slump. Nonetheless, even had this about-face not failed, is it remotely likely that many other New Deal programs, ranging from Social Security to the Tennessee Valley Authority to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to federal mortgage support agencies wouldn’t be alive and kicking, to put it mildly. Obviously that’s because however much most Americans may talk a small government game, they understandably like big government when it delivers tangible benefits.

As a result, when Powell, and others, promise that “When the economy is well on its way back to recovery…we will put these emergency tools away,” you’re free to smirk. The first clause in this sentence alone is grounds for caution, stating that the aid won’t be withdrawn once the worst is over, or when a rebound starts, but when normality is a certainty. If the national experience following the last financial crisis is any guide, when the Fed, for example, even pre-CCP Virus kept interest rates super low for many years after some growth had returned, “the other side” is going to be a place whose location will keep receding for the foreseeable future.

So the specter of the economy remaining hooked on massive government stimulus both for economic and these political reasons could be another reason for bearishness about a robust near-term rebound. (And no, I’m not trying to give out any investment advice here.)  

I’m not necessarily being critical here of the stimulus packages. Just trying to spotlight the safest bets to make, and the need to examine the future with eyes wide open. Is there any viable alternative?