About Me

Name: Michael Avari
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

A clunker of a recovery

This article also appears on the Examiner.

The recession has ended.  Or so the administration would have us believe with the announcement that gross domestic product rose 3.5% in the third quarter.  GDP is defined as the sum of consumption, investment, government spending and net exports (exports less imports).  The figures released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) of the Department of Commerce are “advance” estimates based on only two month’s data, and come with these notes:

• Consumer spending turned up strongly. Spending on new cars and trucks was a big contributor, reflecting the federal “cash for clunkers” program, which was in effect in July and August.
• Housing increased for the first time in 15 quarters.
• Inventory investment, exports, and government spending also added to growth.1

The BEA estimates that “motor vehicle output added 1.66 percentage points to the third-quarter change in real GDP” 2; that is, almost half of the increase.  When the government throws money at consumers, the GDP is boosted two ways by the definition: in this case 0.48% for government spending and 2.36% for personal consumption (including the 1.66% of vehicles) for a total effect of 2.84%.  The balance of the 3.5% GDP increase comprised investments, +1.22%, and net exports, -0.53% (imports exceeded exports, and the net reduced GDP).

The hypothesis that government incentive drove consumption in Q3 was confirmed by the data released a few days after the GDP announcement showing consumption declined 0.5% in September.  The Wall Street Journal reported, “The decline was largely attributed to reduced car sales a month after the ‘cash for clunkers’ program ended.  Spending on durable goods such as cars and other products designed to last more than three years fell 7%, more than erasing gains from a month earlier.” 3

Was the transitory cash for clunkers program worthwhile?  According to the Department of Transportation, the government spent almost $3 billion to help 690,000 consumers trade old vehicles for new 4.  The average increase in miles per gallon was 9.2.  Using the DoT’s numbers, on average we spent $4,170 per vehicle in order to help the owner save 278 gallons per year5 or, at $2.80/gallon, $778.  In aggregate we are saving 191.8 million gallons of fuel per year.  Sounds like a lot?  The U.S. consumes 378 million gallons per day6, which means that all these gymnastics save only half a day’s fuel annually.

Did the program help put a dent in oil imports?  Again the answer is ‘no’.  We import roughly 13 million barrels of oil per day 7.  At $80 dollars a barrel, we send about $1 billion overseas daily.  Those 191.8 million annual gallons saved by the clunkers exchange are equivalent to roughly 12,515 barrels per day 8 which equates to $1 million/day. This is a trifling one thousandth (1/1000) of our daily imports.  Put another way, these vehicle fuel savings will take eight years to cover the government’s borrowing $3 billion for the program 9.  And that does not include interest our children will pay on that debt.

Have we helped the automakers?  Again, according to the DOT statistics, ten of the top ten vehicles traded-in were American.  Of the top ten new vehicles bought, eight were foreign.  Music and dancing were heard on the streets of Tokyo and Seoul.

Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood called the program a “win for the environment”, but is it?  According to the government’s web site, we emit 17 billion tons of greenhouse gases each year from our vehicles 10.  The fuel saved from the clunkers programs will save a nugatory 1.9 million tons/year: about one ten-thousandth (1/10,000) of the nationwide emissions 11.

With the these indefeasible facts, one has to look at The White House paean to the 640,329 jobs “created/saved”—miraculously up from only 30,383 just a few days ago on Recovery.gov—with economist Alan Meltzer's skepticism, “One can search economic textbooks forever without finding a concept called ‘jobs saved’.“ 12

Evidently, there are a few other things one cannot find in those books.

________________

[1] GDP Rises 3.5 Percent In Third Quarter, “Advance” Estimate of GDP, Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2009/pdf/gdp3q09_adv_fax.pdf

[2] Gross Domestic Product: Third Quarter 2009 (Advance Estimate), Bureau of Economic Analysis
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

[3] Consumer Spending Falls, Fueling Concerns About Recovery , 31 Oct. 2009, The Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125690429096718435.html

[4] US Department of Transportation: http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot13309.htm

[5] a) $2,878M/690,114 vehicles = $4,170
b) Assuming 12,000 average miles driven/year/vehicle:
12,000/24.9 MPG (new vehicle) – 12,000/15.8 MPG (traded vehicle) = 278 gallons/vehicle

[6] Energy Information Administration: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_home#tab2

[7] Energy Information Administration: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbblpd_a.htm

[8] Using a DOE factor of 42 gallons/barrel of oil: (191.8 million gallons/year) / (42 gallons/barrel) / (365 days/year) = 12,511 barrels/day

[9] $3 B / ($1 M x 365 days/year) = 8 years

[10] FuelEconomy.gov, http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/climate.shtml

[11] 191.8 million gallons saved/year x 19.4 pounds of CO2 emitted/gallon / 2000 lbs./ton = 1.86 million tons

[12] "Stimulus Created/Saved 650,000 Jobs? There’s No Way to Know for Sure", 30 Oct. 2009, The Wall Street Journal, http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/10/30/stimulus-created-or-saved-650000-theres-no-way-to-know-for-sure/
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Romer v. Romer: why the stimulus is not working

Also on the Examiner

It happened so quickly, few people noticed.  The chief architect of the President’s stimulus plan, Christina Romer, who now heads the Council of Economic Advisors, testified before the Congressional Joint Economic Committee on 22 October.  While such an event would be otherwise unremarkable, what is striking in this instance is Dr. Romer’s sudden reversal in her economic projections in so short a period of time.

In her prepared statement before the Committee on the status of American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, Romer predicted that unemployment will remain at about 10% through 2010. 1

Yet with Jared Bernstein in the seminal paper written for president-elect Obama in January to justify and sell the plan to the country, she writes, “… we expect the plan to more than meet the goal of creating or saving 3 million jobs by 2010Q4” 2.  Relying on a now famous chart in that paper, shown here, Romer originally predicted unemployment dropping to 7% by the end of 2010.  In other words, the actual unemployment rate will be nearly 50% more than her original estimate.  In any other business, inaccuracies like these might have landed Dr. Romer among the numbers she is measuring.

In stark contrast to the rosy picture she portrayed before the Recovery Plan was passed, Romer wrote this furtive statement in her testimony to Congress last week: “Most analysts predict that the fiscal stimulus will have its greatest impact on growth in the second and third quarters of 2009.  By mid-2010, fiscal stimulus will likely be contributing little to growth.”  What was that again?  The stimulus’ greatest impact has already come and gone?

The Romer/Bernstein chart predicted unemployment would peak at 9% without the Recovery Plan.  Now Romer reveals the economic picture looks worse than even that through next year.  Is it possible, then, that the stimulus actually exacerbates the recession?

Romer unwittingly supplies the elements of an argument supporting such a notion.

When critics of the stimulus originally cited the adverse effect of the nearly $800 billion stimulus on the deficit, she argued in March, "There is no reason to think the government will have any trouble doing the borrowing needed to finance the [stimulus] package.  Investors appear to be delighted to lend to the U.S. government at very low interest rates.” 3  Now she admits to Congress: “Such long-term deficits [$1.4 trillion] are unacceptable and need to be dealt with.  Over the long run, sustained deficits crowd out private investment and reduce long-run growth.”

No one on Capital Hill or in the press picked up on the implied argument.  The stimulus adds to the deficit.  Deficits crowd out private investment and reduce long term growth.  The stimulus won’t help the economy in 2010.  It is plausible, therefore, that the stimulus is making matters worse.

So, Madame Chairman ought we to end the program?  “Such a premature end to stimulus would be misguided.” she wrote, anticipating that counterpoint.  In Washington, logic has no place when policy makers have unfettered access to taxpayer money.

Paul Krugman, a Nobel laureate in economics, touted the Romer/Bernstein paper on his blog in The New York Times, saying his projections were quite similar.  “Kudos, by the way,” wrote Krugman, “to the administration-in-waiting for providing this — it will be a joy to argue policy with an administration that provides comprehensible, honest reports, not case studies in how to lie with statistics.” 4

One wonders if the good Dr. Krugman is so joyful now.  We witnessed the President’s chief economic advisor first tell Congress and the American people unemployment will decrease, deficits don’t matter, and growth will be robust through 2010.  A short nine months later she confesses unemployment will remain high, the deficit is a major concern, and the stimulus’ benefit is already behind us.  Is this not ample evidence of statistical machinations?

 
_________________________________ 

[1] “From Recession to Recovery: The Economic Crisis, the Policy Response, and the Challenges We Face Going Forward”, Christina D. Romer, Chair, Council of Economic Advisers, Testimony before the Joint Economic Committee, October 22, 2009 

[2] Romer, C. & Bernstein, J. “The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan”, 9 Jan. 2009, http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf

[3] White House's Romer: Stimulus may pack more punch, 3 Mar. 2009, Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Economy/idUSTRE52233420090303

[4] Romer and Bernstein on stimulus, 10 Jan. 2009, The New York Times

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »