Government and Job Creation: Where Both Candidates Got It Wrong (Although One More So), Government Does Create Jobs

No binders involved in this jobs question, not even Mitt's "binders full of women" for filling state cabinet positions. In the Presidential debate last night neither of the Presidential candidates got it right on government and job creation. One, of course, was more wrong than the other ... but neither got it right.

Mr. Romney:

"Government does not create jobs. Government does not create jobs. (Chuckles.)"

 President Obama (in response to "What do you believe is the biggest misperception that the American people have about you as a man and a candidate?"):

"... a lot of this campaign, maybe over the last four years, has been devoted to this notion that I think government creates jobs, that that somehow is the answer. That's not what I believe. 

I believe that the free enterprise system is the greatest engine of prosperity the world's ever known. I believe in self-reliance and individual initiative and risk-takers being rewarded. But I also believe that everybody should have a fair shot and everybody should do their fair share and everybody should play by the same rules, because that's how our economy is grown. That's how we built the world's greatest middle class."

Given his relatively conservative budget policy and restraint -- arguably ambivalence -- on fiscal stimulus, it seems plausible that the President really doesn't get that government can create jobs. Sure, he could have just been playing to conservatives, but his actual record suggests he really meant it. He may see more of a role for government in helping free enterprise than his opponent. But that just makes him less wrong. He apparently doesn't particularly believe in fiscal stimulus as a major tool to raise actual GDP towards potential GDP, which shouldn't be surprising to all of the Keynesian economists who called for a much larger, better stimulus and who read the accounts of how we came to get what stimulus we got, mostly without the President seriously pushing for any more. Sure, it might not have been politically feasible to get more, but that was partially because the President wasn't using the bully pulpit to push hard for more. Why? Apparently because he believes the widespread conservative myth that "government does not create jobs".

Despite what the candidates appear to believe, the fact of the matter is clear. Government most certainly can create jobs when actual GDP is significantly below potential GDP. Such as now.

As Dean Baker put it in summing up a different debate, "the Baker-Rowe-DeLong-Krugman Deficit Debate",

"First, we all seem to agree that in a situation where the economy is clearly operating well below its potential, governments can run deficits to boost employment and output. I believe we all agree that in principle the government can also use these deficits to increase future output through productive investment in either physical or human capital. This would make future generations better off on net as a result of deficits today, since the economy will be larger than it would be without the deficits."

When the economy is running at capacity, deficit spending generally won't stably boost us above potential. At that point, extra government spending risks crowding out private enterprise and in some cases certainly will do so. We're not at that point. Heck, we're nowhere near that point. The economy is gradually improving, but we've got a long way to go. While we're still plugging an output gap, deficit spending most certainly can and does create jobs whereas government cuts directly reduce overall employment.

Yet deficit spending during a downturn just illustrates one of many ways that government can create jobs. Progressive tax rates combined with social safety-net programs mitigate inequality and -- by getting money to those who have more want than means to fulfill it -- increase commerce, both effective and potential. Then there's research and development, for which various estimates show it's just a matter of exactly how many dollars are added to the economy for each dollar we've spent on NASA research that we've patented and licensed out to domestic firms. The only question is the exact multiplier; it's certain that NASA spending (not to mention DARPA and others) has created some number of private enterprise jobs beyond those that would have existed without the space program.

Private enterprise certainly excels at many things and government would be the wrong choice for a number of tasks, especially producing most kinds of manufactured products from MP3s to ice cream. So please don't misconstrue this as suggesting that more government is always better; there's a limit to what government reasonably can be expected to do or should do. President Obama is correct to believe that a major part of government's role consists of working towards creating a level playing field for private enterprise. But like Mr. Romney, he's wrong to fall for the conservative delusion on government and job creation. Government most certainly can create jobs. And right now, even more than usual, we very much need government to stop cutting back and do all that it can to create jobs.

But how do we get these politicians and the general public they serve to understand that?

The Progressive Path to Jobs

Steve Roth at Angry Bear yesterday covered similar ground to one of mine from February, "Debunking the Notion that Inequality Wouldn't Impact the Economy". Roth's "GDP, Prosperity, The Wealth Effect, and Marginal Propensity to Consume", took a slightly different track. Whereas I discussed the impact on GDP from inequality of income, Roth looks at inequality of wealth. As of yet, it's hard to say which is the better angle, although as Roth notes, the distinction starts to blur with age, since "people nearing or in retirement start paying a lot more attention to wealth than income." That is, unless you're dealing with folks who have nothing but social security because -- among other possible reasons -- they never had high enough disposable income to put anything aside.

Either way, whether income or wealth is the more important factor, clearly inequality matters. It impacts our commerce, our GDP. At least so long as the people at the middle (let alone the bottom) have wants and needs they can't fulfill for lack of means, a reduction in inequality achieved with the effect of getting more means to those who will use it will increase GDP and general prosperity. Ironically, spreading the wealth around a bit should lead to more potential for our economy to support more wealth. [Caveat: of course, we shouldn't go overboard. Just more equitable ... not perfectly even.]

And by progressive policies leading to more equitable distribution, that would constitute a way that -- contrary to what both candidates said or implied in tonight's debate -- government most certainly can create jobs. What leads to more commerce generally leads to more jobs, and a more equitable distribution would mean more commerce.

Real GDP, the Past Eight Years, and the Years To Come

Real GDP for the past 8 years:

Whatever else one may or may not read into this chart, it sure doesn't help the case for those who would say we should change ships back to the party of Bush II.

Of course, if one adds in potential GDP, essentially where the GDP ought to be right now if we were going to be back to "normal", we're clearly not done. It's roughly like we're going 45 in a 55 MPH zone. There's some serious work to be done to get the economy up to speed. So why has the debate been about how much to raise our foot off the pedal instead of how much further to press down?

When It Went Wrong

When did things start down? Where was the bump in the road that triggered the Great Recession? In this election season, that question matters in the short term for trying to choose the folks most likely to not send us back down the same path. Partisans from both major parties would love to tell us things when wrong under the other party's watch, but only one side can say it accurately. So when did it start?

To begin answering that question, we can't just look at GDP or unemployment alone. While those may tell us when things really got bad, they don't tell us when the problem started. To get a better idea of when the problem started requires focusing further back than when it became obvious to everyone. The overall economy was hammered by a financial crisis, but that financial crisis didn't just spring up on its own. The financial crisis was triggered by a stumbling housing market. So when did housing tumble off the cliff?

Housing fell off a cliff in 2006; in 2007/8, it was just still falling from 2006.

Building permits peaked on September 2005 and then proceeded to fluctuate through January 2006. Housing starts peaked in January 2006. Then after January 6th, both building permits and housing starts tumbled off that cliff, followed soon after by residential construction. Between the January 2006 peak and the start of the 110th Congress in January 2007, housing starts dropped by 38% and residential construction dropped by 15%. The housing industry was collapsing throughout 2006 and bringing layoffs starting with housing and spreading into related domestic industries such as window and cabinet making. Following on housing's decline, manufacturers new orders hit choppy waters in 2006, . By the end of 2006, the effects weren't yet enough to seriously shake unemployment or turn GDP negative, but the decline did start to show in other measures and a slackening of quarterly GDP growth. The annual growth in consumption per capita for 2006 started back down from what we'd seen in 2005.

Demand/person slowed down in 2006 ... before getting to an actual drop.

Put it all together it's really only a technicality that the recession didn't hit until late 2007. In fact, the economy was already in rough shape in 2006, with really lousy growth evident over the 2nd and 4th quarters of 2006, to the point of quarterly GDP growth just barely staying out of negatives.

2006 wasn't technically recession; but it was darn close.

Clearly, the first wave of what became the Great Recession was well under way during the watch of the 109th Congress (2005-2006) under President Bush II, even though we hadn't reached technical recession yet. What happened during the 110th Congress was just that it became clear that the problem -- which was already under way -- was spreading from housing into finance and from there to everything else. The curtain covering over the problems was pulled away in 2007-2008, but the trouble was there before the curtain pulled away. Republicans held majorities in both Houses of the 109th Congress, as they had for almost all of the time since 1995 (except for a slim Senate flip in part of the 107th Congress). By 2006, Republican policies had held sway in both the executive and legislative for years and they were still in control. While there's room for debate as to how much involvement government had in the creating or allowing the mess, the weight of evidence says that if one were going to blame governance, the party to blame for that mess is Republican.

Real GDP Growth and Top Marginal Tax Rates

Regressive fiscal policy depends on the idea that cutting upper bracket taxes will somehow bring growth. Reality seems to show quite the opposite results, as seen in the charts below.

GDP data from the BEA; covering the span of 1930 - 2011

One could argue that perhaps the above chart of GDP growth under the same year as the tax rate might not fully capture the impact because it may take time for changes in investment activity to filter into production of goods. So below let's look at a chart compiled by lining up the tax rates with the GDP growth for the year following the tax rate.

GDP data from the BEA; covering the span of 1931 - 2011

It's hard to get more clear than that. In both the same year and next year match-up scenarios, top marginal tax rates of 70% and above clearly correspond with higher GDP growth than top marginal tax rates below 70%. Indeed, during the Reagan years -- contrary to regressive notions -- lowered top marginal rates came with a corresponding drop in real GDP that manifested as a clear, year to year linear trending correlation. These correlations don't necessarily prove that the higher tax rates caused the higher GDP growth, but they certainly prove that lower tax rates have failed to fulfill the regressive claim. Judging from history, one can not reasonably expect that lowering upper bracket taxes will spur growth. And as Diamond and Saez have shown, there's no reason to expect lowering upper bracket taxes would increase our tax revenue either, since the optimal upper bracket rate for revenue collection sits far higher on the scale than where we are now, somewhere in the 70+% range.

If anything, the data suggests that raising upper bracket taxes may be more likely to spur growth. How could that be? The obvious answer is reinvestment. Lower upper bracket taxes encourage avoiding reinvestment to reap profit. Higher upper bracket taxes encourage reinvestment to avoid reaping taxable profit. That said, increasing upper bracket taxes alone will not fix everything. No matter how much tax policy encourages investment, there must be domestic market demand in order for domestic investment to make sense. Yet given enough demand to make domestic growth investments rational, higher upper bracket taxes can -- and logically will -- encourage that positive choice.

Oh, So You Noticed That Too, Ezra?

Back in January and February of 2011, I wrote a couple posts about the lack of evidence for the right-wing assertion that cutting top marginal tax rates would somehow help our job growth. (See "Tax Rates and GDP Growth" and "Chained to Real: Tax Rates, Inflation-adjusted GDP Measures, and the Difference")

I know it's a bit trivial to revel in my little soap-box covering something before one of the Big Names, but c'est la vie. Where's the fun in never letting loose with frivolity? I just noticed that in June of 2011, Ezra Klein covered the ground that I'd staked out earlier in that year with his post "Tax rates and job creation in one graph". I don't begrudge him that ground at all, of course. I have to admit the graph he posted shows a more compelling visual representation than mine did of why we shouldn't listen to that old excuse for cutting the top rates. Mine merely showed that the right-wing has no grounds for the claim, whereas the one Mr. Klein posted goes further and makes a somewhat persuasive argument in the other direction from the right-wing claims.

Mr. Klein got the chart he'd posted by way of the folks over at American Progress. As they point out about Speaker Boehner, candidate Romney, and their ilk regarding jobs and taxes,

"In fact, they are just as wrong about this as they are about the relationship between marginal tax rates and overall economic growth. In the past 60 years, job growth has actually been greater in years when the top income tax rate was much higher than it is now."

In this case, I'll follow in Mr. Klein's footsteps and post American Progress's chart as a follow up to my own.

from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/marginal_tax_employment_charticle.html 

They also have an article that -- like mine from earlier in that year -- focuses on GDP growth rather than job growth. And as they say there about top marginal tax rates and GDP growth,

"These numbers do not mean that higher rates necessarily lead to higher growth. But the central tenet of modern conservative economics is that a lower top marginal tax rate will result in more growth, and these numbers do show conclusively that history has not been kind to that theory."

It's good to see others using their larger platforms for refuting those conservative claims with the facts.

Our Govt Must Do As We Do

Most of us know what it's like to have to spend money to make money. So why do so many find it counter-intuitive that our nation might have to do the same? We should all know that need from our own lives. Perhaps it's just that our personal vocational spending strikes us as more obvious because we know so directly that we need it.

Oil draining during auto maintenance

We live with many ways we must spend money to maintain our income, let alone increase it. For many, we start by taking out loans for a college degree, but that's only the beginning. Some of us have to purchase training or educational materials every year to keep current. And some must pay annual license or certification fees. Commuters, the vast majority of Americans, must travel to work to keep earning a paycheck, so the car payments must go out every month, the tank must be filled, and the maintenance must be done. Those in snow-prone states must buy shovels and often find ice-melting products an income-preserving investment. Telecommuters have a different set of bills for virtually getting to work, but the costs are no less necessary. Various craftsmen must spend significant amounts on raw materials. Often, the total annual material cost dwarfs the profit from the craft after covering material costs. Most shopkeepers know that story well, as it's a lucky business indeed whose net profits from selling products are significantly larger than the wholesale costs paid year after year.

What's this have to do with our government? Our government's income comes from the economy at large. That economy at large has needs just as we do individually. Commerce grows on better roads and stagnates on worse roads. Businesses thrive on an availability of healthy, qualified workers who can concentrate on their work confident that govt services such as fire and police protection will be there for their homes. And some of those workers are available during the day because after decades of honest work their parents were able not only to retire and get by in a reasonably dignified manner but also with basic medical needs covered. These things cost money. Without them, our nation's commerce would stagnate, reducing tax revenues. We can only maintain our federal income by spending on a variety of national necessities that keep our system of commerce working.

How much spending to make money is reasonable? Individually, that depends on the profession. But the simple answer is: that which at least covers what's necessary to get by but beyond that is not so much we can't profit. With all the attention on our debt, one might think we've been spending more than we can call profit. But there's more than one way to profit. The masters of finance and investment don't focus just on leveraging costs alone but also consider rates of return as well as inflation when deciding where to place bets and for how much. As Ezra Klein pointed out recently, negative real yields on Treasuries can mean "the government is getting paid to keep money safe." This implies that our safe-haven status could -- at least for a while -- mean we're profiting from our borrowing even before considering what we might be doing with that money to increase commerce. But then add in what we can be doing with the money to improve infrastructure, access to healthy, qualified workers, and more. If we do the basic maintenance on our economy plus some efforts at improvement, we should generally expect better growth. If that spending helps national income growth outpace the growth of the debt, what more justification should it need? After all, most of us invest in increasing our own incomes even when it's an ongoing cost.

But how much debt can we manage to juggle to keep oiling the gears? While that's a difficult question to answer, one might consider that historically the full faith and credit of the US govt has been more stable than houses, especially recently. Let's imagine our national govt were looking for a new home loan. We're currently taking what amounts to a voluntary pay-cut with the temporary tax cuts. Given the 2010 GDP of $14.5 trillion and our historical average revenue of 18% of GDP, we should theoretically have had a 2010 revenue around $2.61 trillion. For 2010, playing it safe by using a conservative 28% payment-to-income ratio for affordability, our theoretical govt-as-homeowner loan could have been around $14.5 trillion. In 2010, our debt was $13.5 trillion, around 7% lower than we could have afforded by traditional home purchase standards. And that's not even accounting for the full faith and credit being more solid than houses.

What Can We Really Learn From Estonia?

S&P Downgrade of U.S. and Upgrade of Estonia Inspires Misguided Admiration

In the wake of a few recent S&P decisions, fans of budget cuts are practically waving the Estonian flag. They point to Estonia's recent austerity measures and it's Q1 2011 growth as some sort of vindication. "Look, look ... we've got a positive example!" Ah, but if only it were that simple. There's more to Estonia's austerity and growth than meets the eye of the starve the beast crowd who would have us emulate their example. Estonia chose "internal devaluation," including wage cuts. So keep in mind what following the Estonian script would mean: big wage-cuts and a lower standard of living. Who really wants to sign up for that?

But more importantly, one should take a closer look at the impact on the Estonian economy before declaring them a model that everyone should copy. I'd swallow some short-term pain if it made the overall situation better for my country in the long run. But in the case of Estonia, the trouble didn't entirely end with the turn-around from the -13.9% plummeting GDP in 2009 to the 1.8% growth in 2010 and varying more-or-less positive growth forecasts for their future. While Estonia has returned to GDP growth, they're doing so on the backs of their neighbors. The one bright-spot in their economy is exports, which were up 43% from a year earlier in June. (Although June's figures showed a drop from the previous month.) Their unemployment remains high. Their retail sales and non-govt construction are both still down significantly. The domestic market isn't looking so good there. But in Sweden, Russia, and Finland demand is rising. All three of Estonia's biggest foreign markets saw significantly higher GDP growth in 2010 than Estonia. The strong growth continues in Sweden in particular ... plenty to explain why Estonian producers have still had a market in the face of lower internal demand. Having growing trading partners is great. But in the long run it's a poor substitute for steady internal demand. Estonia's internal devaluation has made them even more dependent on their neighbors. Should the growth in Sweden, Finland, and Russia cease or even slow down significantly, Estonia could find itself in deep trouble with no fuel for its economy. That sort of dependence on -- and vulnerability to -- foreign trade partners has lots of drawbacks. Sacrificing domestic demand to gain foreign demand means a weakened domestic economy.

So what can we really learn from Estonia? Mainly that it's good to have trading partners who have money to spend on what you're making. That's not a lever we (or anyone else) can control. It's up to our trading partners to keep their economies moving. Aside from maybe lending the occasional wrench, we can only look to get our own engine revving again. But we can also learn that worrying too much about increasing our exports can cause a nation to become export dependent -- at the mercy of the whims of foreign markets. While that may be nice when those markets are thriving, do we really want to count on them completely and make ourselves export dependent? Wouldn't you rather we fixed our domestic shortage of demand instead of sacrificing what's left of it in the vague hope for an uncertain boost to exports?

What is Small Government?

What does small government mean? Those calling for massive cuts say we've got big government and they just want us to get back to small government. They say that whoever disagrees with them wants "big government."

Like pretty much all of my fellow Americans, I want govt to stick to its appropriate role. I want a government that does only what we need it to do. But what if that's what we've got now?

Comparing against other modern, industrialized nations would be one way to put it into perspective. In 2009 we had larger than normal expenditures from stimulus and lower than normal GDP from the Great Recession. That year, we had a GDP of roughly $14,258 billion and total Federal spending of $3,518 billion. That's 24.7%. In the same year, the U.K. central government spent around 32.6% of their GDP. Looking back to the more normal levels of a year that doesn't include stimulus spending, in 2007 our Federal spending was 19.38% of our GDP. That same year, the U.K. central government spent 28.44% of their GDP. That's how the general trend goes. Between 1995 and 2010, the our national govt spending undershot their national govt spending by 8.7% on average.

National govt spending as a share of GDP in the US and UK

The U.K. is far from alone among the other industrialized nations in dwarfing our national govt spending.

Expense (% of GDP) in 2004 from data.worldbank.org

By and large -- though some other countries often run budgets proportionally similar to ours -- we have a relatively small government compared to the other industrialized nations.

Perhaps one could argue that maybe the general trend in the other industrialized nations is to maintain giant governments that dwarf our so-called big government. If that's the case, we should easily be able to find vast, expensive programs that we don't really have any use for in our society ... that few of us would want government to do. Where are those programs?

Shall we cut infrastructure spending and let our already crumbling roads and bridges decay further, making it harder for our businesses to transport products? Shall we dismantle Social Security and allow elderly citizens to starve in the streets? Should we stop investing in the medical research that has helped make our biomedical industry such a large contributor to our GDP? Shall we stop funding education and fail to foster skills needed to compete in the modern global economy? Shall we stop monitoring our food supply so that producers can get away with cutting corners and contamination runs unchecked? Shall we cut billions by stopping payments for police, fire-protection, and border security?

These things are all quite necessary from the government. A modern society doesn't function as well without any of that. When you look at charts showing a much smaller government hundreds of years back in our history, keep in mind that we had an entirely different economy back then. We didn't have the transportation system that we have today. We didn't have a social safety net to make it so an elderly miner could retire rather than just working till he died nor workplace regulations to make it less likely for him to die of black lung. We didn't have such a thriving biomedical industry both making our health better and enriching our nation. We didn't have a workforce capable of designing high-tech products to sell to the rest of the world. We didn't have most of the great things about our modern economy that require government programs to work smoothly and in many cases to function at all. One can't expect the economy of the 21st century to operate with the government spending levels of the 18th or 19th centuries. When we had significantly smaller government, we also drove horse-drawn carts, used outhouses, suffered polio, and couldn't reasonably expect to have a chance of ever retiring. Should we really be basing our idea of appropriate government spending on a time to which we wouldn't want to go back in any other way?

Reagan, Tax Cuts, and GDP

In honor of the 100th anniversary of President Reagan's birth, lets take a look at the effect of his tax cuts for the top marginal rate. When we looked at the course of the past 80 years as a set, it looks as if there isn't a particularly clear correlation between top marginal tax rates and GDP growth. But what if we weren't looking close enough? After all, the last few decades seemed to have a noticeable symmetry.

Where should we look? For President Reagan, whose tax cuts came into play around 1982, we should see those rates working their magic on the economy by two years later in 1984. The rates would continue any effect after President Reagan left office, so lets keep looking up through 1992.

Tax rates on left scale; GDP growth rates on right scale

Inspiring, don't you think? Apparently that GDP growth going down in about the same slope that top marginal tax rates were going down must have been what they meant by "trickle-down."

Of course, that might not be entirely fair. We should probably look at the President's entire term and see what happened in case we can credit the tax cuts immediately with a big initial boost that gradually faded.

Tax rates on left scale; GDP growth rates on right scale

As seen in the chart of 1980 to 1992, there is indeed a big spike in GDP growth immediately after the tax cuts begin. Yet that conflicts with what we see in the rest of the chart. Why would lowering taxes correspond with expansion in one section of the chart and contraction in another? In this case, we need additional data: the Fed rate. The Fed ramped up interest rates brutally high for the early 80s in order to tame massive inflation. The Fed rate had been slowly ratcheted up over 1978 and 1979. The rate for 1979 started at 10% and went up to almost 14%. For 1980, the rate averaged 13%. For 1981, the rate averaged over 16%. The prime interest rate even ventured into the 20s in 1982. These high rates did tame the inflation, but in doing so they brought on the recession of 1981-1982 because they made it much harder to borrow to invest for growth. Naturally, when the brutal interest rates were eased back down in 1982, there was some pent up thirst for financing just waiting for lower interest rates.

What can we draw from 1980 through 1992 as far as taxes and GDP? If these years are indicative of anything, it is that under relatively normal interest rates lowering the top marginal tax rate appears to come with a corresponding drop in GDP. Whereas during a period of extreme high interest rates, there appears to be no correlation between top marginal tax rates and GDP because of the growth-blocking effect of extremely high interest rates.

For the Gipper, unfortunately, that top marginal tax cut play doesn't seem to have been a win.

Chained to Real: Tax Rates, Inflation-adjusted GDP Measures, and the Difference

The question:  what impact (if any) do top marginal tax rates have on GDP growth rates?

Our previous chart of top marginal tax rates versus GDP growth rates utilized "chained dollars," a measure with which not everyone is familiar. That data was drawn from the BEA's Current-dollar and "real" GDP table. While the chained dollars therein are a measure of real GDP, they're not the only measure. There's a slightly different set of data at the BEA's NIPA Table 1.1.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product.

To satisfy those who wonders whether the result would be different if we use another measure of inflation-adjusted GDP:

Left scale for top US marginal income tax rates. Right scale for GDP growth in inflation-adjusted "real" dollars. A 10 year moving average for each figure is also included. GDP data from the BEA. Tax rate data from TruthAndPolitics.org

The results of using this measure of (inflation-adjusted) real GDP are almost the same as using the (inflation-adjusted) chained dollars. From 1951 through 1963 the top tax rate varied between 91 and 92%. During those years, the average rate of inflation adjusted GDP growth (using real dollars) rested at 3.72%, a rather robust growth rate. (GDP growth averaged 3.39% from 1951 through 2007.) By contrast, the GDP growth under the average 37.4% top tax rate from 1986 through 2008 was only 3.2%, 0.52% lower growth than under the much higher 1951 - 1963 tax rate.

Regardless of which inflation-adjusted measure we use, the answer is still the same: Overall, the past 80 years show us a thorough lack of clear correlation between the top marginal tax rate and GDP growth. The data's closest hint of a relationship derives from the slightly more robust average GDP growth back when the top rates were higher, but that closest hint isn't close enough to be sure of an ideal rate. The notion that lowering the top tax rates improves the economy just doesn't hold water. Indeed, these 8 most recent decades show us that increasing the top tax would not necessarily have any impact on the economy, let alone slow it at all.

original chart

Update 02/07/2011:  Replaced original chart with improved version featuring better parity of scales, better visibility of trendlines, and replacement of the poly trend with a linear. The change in scale does suggest an interesting symmetry in the past two or three decades. We'll look at that in more detail later.

Tax Rates and GDP Growth

Let's see whether we can prove that higher taxes are bad for the economy by charting the top marginal tax rate versus the % growth in GDP for each year. If higher taxes stifle the economy, we should see an increase in growth each time we lower tax rates. And likewise, if the theory holds, we'll see a drop in growth each time we increase the tax rate. Does that pan out?

Left scale for top US marginal income tax rates. Right scale for GDP growth in chained 2005 dollars. A 10 year moving average for each figure is also included. GDP data from the BEA. Tax rate data from TruthAndPolitics.org

There's a lot of fluctuation, including some times when the line for GDP growth is off the chart; but the 10 year moving average trend gives a good idea of the general direction. Growth ramped up after the tax rate increased sharply following the Great Depression. Then after sling-shotting back down, growth gradually stabilized with a rather steady 10 year moving average lightly bouncing around 3% growth from the late 1950s through 2007. Interestingly, that 3% stabilization formed during the years when the top marginal tax rate was 91% or higher. From 1951 through 1963 the top tax rate varied between 91 and 92%. During those years, the average rate of inflation adjusted GDP growth (using chained dollars) rested at 3.51%, a rather robust growth rate. By contrast, the GDP growth under the average 37.4% top tax rate from 1986 through 2008 was only 2.83%, 0.68% lower.

Overall, the past 80 years show us a thorough lack of clear correlation between the top marginal tax rate and GDP growth. The data's closest hint of a relationship derives from the slightly more robust average GDP growth back when the top rates were higher, but that closest hint isn't close enough to be sure of an ideal rate. The notion that lowering the top tax rates improves the economy just doesn't hold water. Indeed, these 8 most recent decades show us that increasing the top tax would not necessarily have any impact on the economy, let alone slow it at all.

Update 02/03/2011:  see Chained to Real: Tax Rates, Inflation-adjusted GDP Measures, and the Difference for a version of the above chart using another inflation-adjusted measure of real GDP growth (with roughly the same result).

Original chart

Update 02/07/2011:  Replaced original chart with improved version featuring better parity of scales, better visibility of trendlines, and replacement of the poly trend with a linear. The change in scale does suggest an interesting symmetry in the past two or three decades. We'll look at that in more detail later. 

Debunking Subramanian: No, China Isn't Bigger

Tom Gjelten of NPR in a piece asking "Is China's Economy Already No. 1?" tells us that "By traditional measures of gross domestic product — the value, in U.S. dollars, of total goods and services produced — the size of the U.S. economy is $14.6 trillion. China's GDP is only $5.7 trillion. But if China's economy is assessed according to its "purchasing power," it may be a different story." He further relates how Arvind Subramanian tells us that by purchasing power, their economy is already larger.

But this isn't just in conflict with tradition. Purchasing power parity (PPP) is mainly useful for assessing living standards because it adjusts for the costs of selected goods within a currency's market area. PPP gives a better sense of how many bowls of rice the average Chinese citizen can buy with their Renminbi vs how many bowls the average American can buy with our Dollar. The strength of PPP comes as a per capita measure on internal purchases. For 2010 the IMF rated per capita PPP of China at 7,518 International Dollars whereas the per capita PPP of the US is 47,123 International Dollars. So we can see that the average American can buy a lot more bowls of rice (or most anything else) in America than the average Chinese citizen can buy in China. By contrast, when they're both touring Germany, if you want some idea what the Chinese citizen can buy there vs what the American can buy there, PPP won't help you as much as GDP because their PPP figures aren't tuned for Germany's market. For international buying, you need to use the actual exchange rates, which means you want the GDP because it is listed using those very same exchange rates that would take effect for international purchases. Anyone (like Subramanian) who'd use PPP as an assessment of "the bigger economy" internationally should generally be considered dubious at best. There are good reasons why it is traditional to use GDP to compare the size of national economies. When you're looking at the ability to purchase outside of your own market, it just doesn't make sense to use a figure tuned to purchasing strictly within your own market.

If that weren't enough, by all accounts other than Subramanian, his assessment of Chinese PPP is bizarrely high. While the IMF, World Bank, and CIA World Factbook all come up with slightly different calculation results from each other, they're only slightly different from each other and way, way below what Subramanian claims. They all list China below the US in PPP by a fairly wide margin.

Then, for icing on the cake, there are the very big problems in China, such as the housing bubble mentioned in Gjelten's article. Their growth is currently on a trajectory to overtake us. But past results do not guarantee future performance. China is likely to generally grow over the coming decades, but they may face some serious stumbles and possible huge crashes as well. And while we're not doing it now, if we were to start revamping our infrastructure and investing more in our own growth, we could actually use our head start to keep our advantage. Not that we necessarily will. But it is a bit premature to say that China's economy will necessarily eclipse our economy at any point in the future. It may. It seems plausible that it will. It isn't guaranteed.

China Doesn't Own Us

Intertwined

With the visit of the Chinese President, Hu JinTao, there's a lot of talk about the amount of our debt that China has financed. Paul R. La Monica, writing for CNNMoney.com, even proclaims "Let's face it. China is kind of like our landlord. Or, if you prefer a more menacing term, our loan shark. We should tread carefully."

The reports of the death of America's financial strength are greatly exaggerated. Yet they're widely believed. According to a Pew poll, nearly half of Americans "see China as the world’s leading economic power." That's a pretty stunning belief when you consider that as of the 2010 IMF figures, the GDP of the US is still higher than that of the next three largest economies combined (14.6 trillion for the U.S.A. vs 14.4 trillion for the combination of China, Japan, and Germany).

So how did a much smaller economy get such a hold over the top mover & shaker? It didn't. According to the Treasury, our total public debt stands a $14.008 trillion. Of that, "intra-governmental holdings" account for about a third at $4.631 trillion. Intra-governmental holdings are the govt writing an IOU to itself from to borrow from all sorts of trust funds and other places where it had money set aside. That portion certainly isn't held by China. The Federal Reserve, various domestic investors (pension funds, mutual funds, etc.), state and local governments, banks, insurance companies, and various other U.S. interests together own large portions of the debt. China only own about $895.6 billion in our debt. Yes, I said "only." That's a large figure to you and me, but it's quite a bit less than is held by our govt lending to itself. It's not all that much more than the amount held by pension funds. It's not all that much more than the amount held by mutual funds. It's not all that much more than the amount held by our state and local governments. It's not all that much more than the amount held by the combination of banks and insurance companies. Lot's of domestic groupings each hold comparable amounts, some more and some less. It's barely more than is held by Japan. It's around 6% of our debt.

At 6% of our debt, that's not ownership. That's not an overwhelming landlord. It's not even a loan shark. Yes, they're a significant lender for us. But they don't have a controlling stake.

Meanwhile, our imports account for about 25% of their exports. And their economy is still largely export driven. If we put strict controls on imports from China it would severely hurt their economy. Strict controls interfering with their exports to the US might well hurt their economy even more than it would hurt ours if they suddenly started dumping our debt. But, of course, they're not about to do that, since much of their cash is tied up in our debt. If they were to sell it quickly, they'd lose a lot of their value from their cash reserves. And where would they put it anyway? The crisis-prone Euro? Not if they've got any sense.

To ice the cake, as David Frum says, it's "a country facing problems as huge as its achievements." They're battling rapid inflation. Their aging workforce situation over the next couple decades may well make our Baby Boomer retirement hurdle look like child's play. And there's been talk of a growing housing bubble in China that may dwarf our Great Recession housing market trouble.

All of this means that China is at least as tied to us as we are to them. They've developed an important relationship with us ... important for both nations. They don't own us.

Plan For Growth

"It takes as much energy to wish as it does to plan." - Eleanor Roosevelt

We have uncomfortably high unemployment. We want that to come down. We also have an uncomfortably high deficit. That needs to drop too. What we need is a plan. One that can do both. One that can work.

Our new House majority has loudly pushed focusing on the deficit with budget cuts. The trouble, as I've previously shown and discussed in relation to specific budget cutting figures, is that any significant budget cuts are very, very likely to steer us into far higher unemployment. That would further reduce tax revenues and make the deficits worse. So that just won't work. We can't get rid of the deficit by chopping growth and making the deficit worse.

What can we do?

Well, what happens if we maintain the status quo? What happens if we proceed with spending at the exact dollar amount it is now, keep tax rates exactly where they are, and manage to keep the pace of growth at the roughly 3% estimated for 2011? (Note that spending is scheduled to shrink in 2012 with the expiration of stimulus programs and the winding down of expensive wars. So this assumes we actually spend more than is currently expected for some of these years.)

Deficit/surplus assuming budget holds steady, 3% GDP growth, and revenue stays at the current 14.81% of GDP

Interesting. We'd have a surplus by 2029 at that rate and could start reducing our debt. That's without budget cuts. That's even assuming more spending for at least one of those years than is currently projected. We'd all love to see that budget gap closed sooner, but that's going in the right direction.

OK, how can we speed that up? What happens if we go back to the 30-year average of revenue as a percentage of GDP starting in 2012 but keep all else as before, with spending staying at the 2010 dollar level and a 3% GDP growth rate?

Deficit/surplus assuming budget holds steady, 3% GDP growth, and revenue goes back to 18.2% of GDP in 2012

A bit better. That'd have the surplus and its potential paying down of the debt begin in 2022. But let's try for more. What happens if we go back to the 30-year average of revenue as a percentage of GDP starting in 2012, keep spending at the 2010 dollar level, and find some way to increase our growth rate over 3%? For the sake of charting, let's imagine we get it up to 4% in 2012, peak at 5% in 2013, and then manage 4% thereafter.

Deficit/surplus assuming budget holds steady, but revenue goes back to 18.2% of GDP and avg. 4% GDP growth from 2012

That's more like it, don't you think? If we could achieve an average 4% GDP growth over that time, we could be seeing revenue eclipse spending in 2019, assuming we keep spending at the dollar amount from 2010 and return revenue back to the 30-year average of 18.2%. That's just 8 years from now. I don't know about your kids, but that's even before my older daughter will start college.

That's fairly vague, I'll admit. I've left a lot of room for what exactly those efforts to increase the rate of GDP growth might be. Where to get the money? I'm not a defense expert, but even some conservatives are suggesting we have some fat to trim in the defense spending. Imagine if we took those proposed cuts on spending beyond what the Pentagon actually needs to do its job and transferred that money into real job creation programs.

Off the top of my head, I can come up with several ways we could be doing more to create jobs through our Federal govt:

1. a reborn national Civilian Conservation Corp chartered for 5 with potential to renew
2. repairs to all of our crumbling bridges (and maybe revamping some roads too)
3. high tech research towards "green" energy and products

The first two of these would easily pay off right away. We've got a lot of unemployed construction workers, and it shouldn't take a terrible lot of retraining to put a lot of them to work in a CCC or on improving our transportation infrastructure. The research part might take a bit longer to get going, but the pay-out would go even further. Well beyond when we might have brought our unemployment down using a CCC and beefed up infrastructure projects, we could be benefiting from jobs and sales in exporting of green tech, just like we've benefited from Defense Department and NASA research in our computer industry. That's investing prudently in a future for our children.

It's time.

GOP Seeks Lower GDP

Sen. Rand Paul

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) feels we can cut 30% across the board. Or maybe 10%. According to Ben Armbruster of ThinkProgress, "It is unclear which reduction figure, 10 percent or 30 percent, he is officially advocating." On ABC's "Top Line", Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) says that she's found "about $450 billion worth of cuts." That'd be around 12%. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) has talked about cutting the budget by 40%. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) strikes it at a balanced budget, which means roughly 33%.

As previously detailed, when we cut the budget to avoid borrowing, those cuts don't come from nowhere. They come out of spending, reducing demand, lowering our nation's GDP. In good times, that's fine. When GDP growth is high enough, we can afford to cut. But we can't afford to drop our growth below around 2.5%. Otherwise we get rising unemployment. One would hope that these members of Congress understand national budgets, have done the math, and wouldn't propose a drop that would take us below 2.5% GDP growth, right?

So what would each of those figures mean? We can plug these into a rough formula. Some of the lower estimates figure the government around a 25% share of GDP. To give these members of Congress the most benefit of the doubt, we'll go with this low estimate. So when you cut government spending by a percentage, you effectively cut the GDP (or more precisely lower the percentage change in GDP) by roughly 1/4 of the percentage by which government spending was cut. Applying Okun's Law (or Okun's Rule of Thumb), we can expect roughly a 1% drop in employment per 2% reduction of the GDP growth below 2.5%. It's a rough figure, but it tells us more or less what we should expect.

Govt budget cut % / 4 = -% GDP impact

Our baseline is 3%. Why? That's a typical estimate for our GDP growth for 2011. Since the stable point for unemployment is around 2.5%, we might theoretically be able to take about a 0.5% drop in GDP without adding more to the unemployment roster and reducing our payroll tax revenue (thus increasing the deficit).

Let's start with the most modest of these, Sen. Shelby's 10% (assuming he didn't really mean 30%).

10% budget cut / 4 = 2.5 % GDP impact

est. 0.5 % GDP meaning 1% added to unemployment rate

Well, that's not very pleasing. So what do we get from the others?

Rep. Backmann's 12%:

12% / 4 = 3%

est. 0% GDP meaning 1.25% added to unemployment rate

Sen. Paul's 33%:

33% / 4 = 8.25%

est. -5.25% GDP meaning 3.875% added to unemployment rate

Sen. Lee's 40%:

40% / 4 = 10%

est. -7% GDP meaning 4.75% added to unemployment rate

So just how much unemployment do they suppose we can handle? Either the answer is above, or they just don't realize that their slash and burn plans would raise unemployment. Even the most modest of them would cause unemployment to rise at this point of not particularly fast growth.

Meanwhile, each of these increases in unemployment would mean fewer people on payrolls. That means less income tax revenue. Since a drop in revenue doesn't generally cause our costs to drop, that means that assuming we went with Sen. Paul's balanced budget, we'd build ourselves a brand new deficit because of that extra almost 4% tacked onto the unemployment picture. So to use Sen. Paul's "ironclad" balanced budget rules, we'd have to make further cuts. Assuming nothing else rescued our GDP from outside, that'd mean a further drop in GPD and more unemployment. Let's not do that. Not now. Not while we don't have enough growth to afford cuts.

The Cost of Cuts

To break even on employment, we need around 2 or 3% growth in GDP.

"Putting this in our current context we can see that growth has to do two things. First it has to cover, or absorb, growth in the workforce due to population changes. A good rule of thumb in the US is that GDP needs to rise by about 2.5% for unemployment just to stay even with such changes." from "Sticky unemployment – Okun’s Law" by Peter Radford

Our GDP, the amount of goods and services we produce, comes from the amount that is spent on American goods and services ... the supply rises and falls to meet the demand. Of that spending (or demand), private sources (individuals and corporations) spend only a portion of the total that makes up the GDP. The government also spends, and that spending makes up a portion of the total demand for goods and services.

Supply doesn't discriminate. Supply is blind to the source. It doesn't care whether the demand comes from private or public sources. No matter what portion of the demand comes from each, supply doesn't care about anything other than the total. If the total demand rises, supply will meet it and require more workers to do so. If the total demand falls, supply will meet it and require fewer workers to do so.

Government's share of GDP has mostly risen over the years, although not in an exactly straight line. Some hate this fact; but whether you call it positive, negative, or neutral, there it is. Government's shared of GDP has been estimated at 25% (or even 43.85% by one source) for 2010. For the sake of avoiding any exaggeration of the impact of government spending cuts, let's go with that smaller 25% figure. At 1/4 of GDP, a 10% cut in government spending would mean about a 2.5 % reduction in GDP. Let's simplify the numbers so that is easy to see. Imagine if we had a total GDP of 100 million dollars and 25 million of that were from the government:

100 - (25 * 0.10) = 100 - 2.5 = 97.5

So there you have it, a 10% cut in govt spending would shrink our GDP by 2.5%. Of course, this assumes that what we're cutting is to make up for deficit spending, i.e. govt foreign borrowing. Considering that the main reason there's talk of cutting government spending in the US is to reduce foreign borrowing, that seems a safe assumption. Borrowing brings in money from outside, so a reduction in debt-based spending does not get offset inside the system. If we had a balanced budget and were cutting spending in order to lower taxes, the offset might just be shifted from public to private spending. But that's not where we are. We're looking at cuts to reduce the amount of GDP we cover by bringing in money from outside, which means we'd reduce the total spending in the system, the total demand, the total GDP.

But what does it mean to have a cut in government spending reduce our GDP? This brings us back to that minimum GDP growth of about 2.5% in order to keep employment stable. Estimates vary, but many forecasts for 2011 US GDP growth are around 3%. So if we cut our government budget by about 10%, that'd subtract 2.5% and give us a GDP growth of about 0.5%, which is roughly 2% below the level needed to sustain stable employment. That means we'd have rising unemployment. Of course, rising unemployment lowers payroll tax revenues. Dropping payroll tax revenues increase the deficit. Deficit increases make people think about cutting more from the government spending. See how this could spiral?

To balance the 2011 budget, we'd need to cut government spending by about $1.27 trillion. The total spending for 2011 at this point is estimated around $3.83 trillion. This means that we'd need to cut the budget by around 33% in order to balance revenue with spending.

Assuming the lower 25% share of GDP, thus less impact, a 33% drop in government spending strictly to avoid taking on more debt would slash 8.25% from our GDP.

100 - (25 * 0.33) = 100 - 8.25 = 91.75

Downward spiral

Pulling 8.25% from our GDP growth would leave us with a GDP growth of around -5.25 for 2011, which is a severe contraction. Remember that we need around 2.5% growth to keep unemployment stable and higher than that to see a reduction in unemployment. So with a -5.25% contraction in GDP, unemployment would go up, up, and up some more. That rising unemployment would promptly lower our revenue (and increase our costs for the unemployed) and give us a deficit again. That deficit might make people cut more, which would lower our GDP further and bring more unemployment.

"What you see is that unemployment tends to fall when growth is high, rise when it’s low or negative. You also see that growth has to be fairly fast — more than 2 percent — just to keep the unemployment rate from rising. Why? Well, productivity is rising, so that you can produce any given level of output with fewer workers; so output has to rise to keep employment from falling. And the working-age population is growing, so you need positive employment growth just to keep unemployment from rising." from "Growth and unemployment" by Paul Krugman

Bad recipe. Clearly, we can't cut our way out of this deficit. We have no choice but to find a way to grow. If we had high GDP growth (like 7%), we could to cut meaningful amounts (like maybe 10%, assuming 7% GDP growth), and still have rising employment, reducing unemployment. Rising employment would also mean more payroll tax revenues, thus lowering the deficit directly. Growth such as this is the only way to spiral upwards. During slow growth, cuts force a downward spiral.

We can't afford cuts. We have to find a way to grow.