No, World War 2 Didn't End The Depression

There's a common myth out there that goes, "the Great Depression was finally ended by World War 2". It has some slight variations, such as "the Great Depression lasted 15 years" or even "the market didn't recover until govt spending stopped".

All of these are complete misunderstandings of history if not outright lies.

While there may not be as accepted a definition for depression as for recession, there's a good bit of consensus along the lines of these two criteria for an economic depression:

1. real GDP decline beyond 10%
2. period of decline lasting more than three years

Year	2005 Real GDP
1929	977,000
1930	892,800
1931	834,900
1932	725,800
1933	716,400
1934	794,400

Real GDP declined every year from 1929 through 1933. By 1934, the economy had been pushed back into growth again. There you have it: the end of the Great Depression. It was 1929-1933, far short of 15 years. One can not be in a depression and have real GDP growth because a depression is defined by GDP decline. One can note other factors peculiar to depression, such as deflation. But a depression only exists while there is a declining economy as measured by real GDP. One can debate what ended the Great Depression, whether it was a combination of monetary and fiscal policy, deficit spending alone, monetary policy alone, or some other set of factors. But there is no reasonable debate that the Great Depression ended years before World War 2 when the economy returned to growth.

Some effects of the Great Depression -- though mostly diminished -- did linger somewhat until World War 2. That much is true. Although unemployment had been drastically reduced before the war, it was still high until the war. Yet while it took quite a while to achieve full recovery, it did not take all that long to achieve renewed growth. Unemployment peaked in 1933. By 1936, the New Deal had kicked the economy into rolling again and -- though unemployment was still high -- the main economic indicators were back in gear. In early 1937, industrial production reached a level above that of 1929. But then pressure picked up to balance the budget, and FDR and Congress cut back spending. Although unemployment had been dramatically reduced from its peak, it was still too high for the economy to be self-sustaining. With the fiscal and monetary tightening of 1937, production dropped and unemployment went back up. Seeing the mistake, they stoked spending back up in 1938 and the recovery resumed.

Unemployment remained problematic throughout the 1930s and into the start of the 1940s. But even that measure declined every year that the New Deal was fully in force. The recession of 1937-1938 showed the effect of govt cutbacks pushed by Republicans overzealous to balance the budget at the wrong time. The cuts interrupted the full weight of the New Deal to push the economy forward. The unemployment rate continued to drop right up until the start of the war. We were already growing towards full recovery before the war. Admittedly, the massive increase of spending for the war -- far beyond that of the New Deal -- did push unemployment to very low levels far more rapidly than we would have achieved without the focus of a war effort. But the war boom runs quite the opposite of a case against spending. The extreme, focused spending for the war effort rocketed our economy higher. It was a finale to the New Deal, like a burst of fireworks at the end of a good 4th of July show. It couldn't be further from the truth to say that "the market didn't recover until govt spending stopped". When govt cut spending while the economy was still weak, the economy suffered. Except for the disastrous cut-backs that brought us the recession of 1937-1938, government didn't stop spending until the markets had recovered.

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?

Gross Govt Impact

The idea that we should make huge govt budget cuts is premised on the notion that our economy would be better off that way, wouldn't be hurt by it, or at least would soldier on about the same. Sometimes the best insight into that notion comes from people who weren' even discussing budget cuts directly. Daniel Gross's recent article about whether to buy bonds or not didn't touch on the idea of budget cuts at all. It's one and only focus was on whether US govt bonds are still a safe-haven investment compared to stocks. To explain that, he covers the impact on stocks if the US runs up against the debt ceiling and stops spending to not default on bonds.

"The U.S. government occupies a pretty large footprint in the economy. It employs 2.85 million people directly. Next, think of all the businesses, many of them publicly held, that rely on the government  for a big chunk of their business. For-profit education companies, defense contractors, the entire health care industry, Wal-Mart and other retailers that cater to people who depend on federal benefits to help pay their grocery bills. Every large consulting firm, every large tech firm (from Microsoft to IBM) has a large unit that provides services and products to the federal government.

Should the U.S. bump up against the debt limit without resolution, it's possible the Pentagon would delay indefinitely the signing of new contracts for fighter jets. Or agencies would cancel or slowdown payment on IT projects. Or Congressmen and their staffers would see their wages reduced. Or fewer people would get food stamps. The cumulative impact would be less demand, less economic activity, more uncertainty."

In pointing this out, Mr. Gross was ostensibly more concerned with explaining why bonds seem a relatively safe investment at this point. He says, "government reliance on debt to fund of operations and investments is so great that they'd rather alienate workers and citizens and taxpayers than anger the bond market." So all the explanation of what they'd have to do to avoid angering the bond market just explains why stocks are the more risky bet despite debt ceiling fears.

Yet there's a far more important take away than Mr. Gross's surface question of whether it makes more sense to invest in bonds versus stocks. Those payments we'd have to avoid making? They're a lot like the cuts the GOP wants to make. If the Republicans got their way -- the whole thing for which they're playing chicken with the debt ceiling -- we'd see most of those cuts. No wonder they don't care about the debt ceiling, if what they figure we'd avoid paying to avoid default are the things they don't want to fund anyway. And "Of course, all these moves would be contractionary — they'd help slow economic growth."

Contraction, by the way, is more or less a general term for things like recessions and depressions. Mr. Gross didn't speculate on whether those non-payments (or cuts, if de-funded in a relatively orderly manner) would cause a mere recession or a full-fledged depression. But that's really the remaining question for anyone who might be paying attention to where the Republicans goals would shove us. If the Republicans get their massive budget cuts, the question isn't whether it'll hammer the economy, the question is only how hard ... and whether we've ever seen it hammered that hard before.

Why Business Hires, and the Deficit Isn't It

Why would you hire a new employee for your business assuming you had one? All of the answers generally come down to one root: to make the company better.

Better could be a lot of things: producing more products/services, reducing vulnerability to some risk, producing better products/services, improving public image, broadening supply resources, strengthening relationships with vendors/clients/customers, etc. They all more or less seek the same goal. You want your company to bring in more income and do so more reliably.

What's this have to do with the deficit? Nothing.

Seriously, how many businesses can you name that consider the deficit when making a hiring decision? A few financial companies may occasionally see some impact from really big deficit changes on the need to create or eliminate positions related to bond trading. That's most of the jobs that are impacted by the deficit in any real way. Ordinary businesses hire because they need more employees to cover their production or to pitch their products, with absolutely no factoring in the size of the deficit.

None the less, Republicans want us to focus on cutting the deficit despite that many of them campaigned on the idea that they would improve the job situation. So now they're trying to make people think there's a connection between what they promised and what they're trying to do.

"Cutting the federal deficit will create jobs" -- Rep. Cantor (R-VA)

That's completely and utterly divorced from any sort of reality on where we get jobs. The GOP have begun spinning elaborate stories to try to pretend there's a connection. Why is Rep. Cantor making that claim? Voters are concerned about jobs. The Republicans know that right now there's no better pitch for anything than jobs. And they wants to eliminate any govt program they can get their hands on. There's no way to get more support for their plans to ransack govt than to convince voters that it'll help what voters really care about: jobs. Unfortunately, the truth is quite the opposite. The truth is that -- during a troubled economy -- the sort of cuts the Republicans are pushing are worse than doing nothing at all.

Cutting the deficit won't give businesses more customers. Cutting govt spending takes customers away from businesses that provide goods and services to the govt. That's most businesses. Indirectly, that's all businesses. During good times, when the economy is humming along at a fast pace, a govt cutback wouldn't necessarily be a big problem. With the economy struggling to recover from the massive credit crunch and layoffs that were the finale of the Bush II administration, we can't afford so many businesses losing demand from govt purchases. The most obvious reason to hire is to handle greater demand. The most obvious reason for layoffs is because of a drop in demand. There's no more surefire way to drive ourselves back into recession -- or worse -- than massive budget cuts. That's a recipe for even higher unemployment.

---

On a related note, for a decent catalog of the Republican record as far as jobs, see ""Where Are The Jobs?":The GOP's Two-Year Campaign Against Job Creation and Economic Growth"

Cuts Damage: Even for the Body Politic

"For every $1 the government doesn't spend, economic activity shrinks by as much as $2."

from Insights on Stimulus, Thanks to the Mafia

This insight comes from an Italian study showing that when they freeze spending for government project in areas where Mafia corruption was found, the reduction in government spending leads to an even larger decrease in economic activity in the region than the amount of the initial cut. Not only do private sources not step in to make up for whatever the government doesn't spend, but without the government project there is even less private spending than there would be otherwise.

There are, of course, limits to how much the ratios seen in that study will match the ratios one would see elsewhere, such as in the U.K. austerity programs or the massive budget cuts that the GOP is attempting to foist upon the American people. However, the general mechanism will apply. When you're looking at useful infrastructure improvements [roads, rail, bridges, etc.] and/or programs upon which businesses rely for stability -- such as having their healthy, able-to-work labor supply not bogged down with personally looking after their grandparents -- [Social Security, Medicare, etc.], these things will generally hurt economic activity if government significantly cuts spending.

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.