If one wished to ensure that the recession that officially began in December 2007 and officially ended in June/July 2009 would not be followed by a robust recovery but an anemic one characterized by a 1938-like stasis of high unemployment, weak growth, and massive deficits, I would do the following — both to confuse and antagonize the job-hiring classes:
a) Ensure uncertainty in the private sector so that it continues to cut back and hoard cash. That climate of doubt might be best accomplished by serial talk of higher taxes and new entitlement costs born by the employer such as a federal take-over of health care.
b) Take both real and iconic measures that scare business and question the old rules of free enterprise, perhaps by trying to shut down a new Boeing aircraft plant or reversing the order of the Chrysler creditors or absorbing a private company or two.
c) Create a psychological climate hostile to business that either scares employers or angers them into sitting out any perceived recovery; the best way to do that would be demagogic talk about a country split between those noble who make below $200,000 in annual income and those culpable over $200,000 who need to pay higher taxes; or to use redistributive language suggesting one should at some point realize that he has made enough money, or has thousands in unneeded income that should be taxed, or one should spread the wealth, or need ‘redistributive change’; personalize further those making over $200,000 by pejorative terms such as “fat-cat,” “millionaires and billionaires,” and “corporate jet owners.”
d) Send a message that subsidized companies, especially in so-called green industry, are noble and need help, while profit-making corporations, especially in energy, are suspect. The trick would be to put new regulations on fossil-fuel energy generation plants, prohibit energy and gas exploration and production in large areas of the country, and always prefer subsidizing new energy rather than allowing companies to produce traditional sources on their own.
e) Be selective in targeting capitalist enemies of the people. The conservative Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch are grasping and greedy; the speculators George Soros and Warren Buffett or the very richest Americans like Bill Gates, or non-income-tax paying companies like GE are public-minded and humane. Again, the point is to send the message that for corporations and the wealthy, exemption from White House criticism is found in voiced partisanship and that such preference might well extend to enacting new government crony-capitalist regulations and taxation.
f) Run up historical deficits in ‘gorge the beast’ style that will force at some point either massive new taxes or a Greece-like crack-up, or a steady erosion in the value of U.S. currency, ensuring the U.S. is no longer seen as a haven for investment and financial safety.
The strangest thing about the current paradox of cash-flush companies and little or no economic growth is the administration’s puzzlement over the lethargy — as if no one outside Washington ever listened to what the administration has said or noticed what they have done the last three years.
The point has never been to make the economy robust again - except for the desire to win the election that is coming up so Obamacare can't be repealed. The point has been to change the people of the US, to make them more open to the more logical and fair approach of socialism. Sometimes you have to break some eggs to make a cake.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The point has been to change the people of the US, to make them more open to the more logical and fair approach of socialism".
Wow. I'm not sure where to begin or what to say.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuselooks like you tried ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusethat was a sarcastic comment
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow is it "fair" to take money from people who work, and give it to those who don't want to?
There is nothing logical, or fair, about socialism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSocialism is all about fairness and equality.
Some are just more fair and equal than others.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo support a robust economy, energy should be abundant and cheap. Everything Obama has done has been intended to make it scarce and expensive.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExcellent comment. Also worth mention is the continued war against patents, Sarbanes Oxley, and the fooling around with share options under accounting laws, which have blighted many startups.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere comes QE3, in order to buy union votes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow on Earth does government debt lead to a recession? Governments give money to businesses (through works projects, subsidies, tax incentives, etc.), and that leads to profits for those businesses. It doesn't matter to the business if the money came from the public or private sectors.
It seems to me that taking away government money (by cutting spending) is more likely to lead to a recession.
So, aside from the "psychological effect" of the debt, what is the mechanism for debt to cause recession?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Governments give money to businesses (through works projects, subsidies, tax incentives, etc.), and that leads to profits for those businesses. It doesn't matter to the business if the money came from the public or private sectors."
Is this a serious comment or sarcasm? Governments are vastly less efficient distributors of capital than if the capital had remained in the private sector in the first place. There are massive bureaucratic inefficiencies built in to these "programs". Take ARRA for example, normal bid to work times in my industry are 60-90 days. When the government got involved those jumped to 120-180 days. There's no incentive to go after lowest costs provider. The cash conversion cycle (from purchase of inventory to collection of receivable) is vastly longer. Not to mention the infamous "waste and inefficiency". In any product/service that the private sector does, the government does it far worse/slower/less efficient.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"[Government debt] will force at some point either massive new taxes or a Greece-like crack-up, or a steady erosion in the value of U.S. currency, ensuring the U.S. is no longer seen as a haven for investment and financial safety."
Do people give a tinker's dam about reading the article?
..."tinker's dam," of course, was my CAPTCHA.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf your idea were correct, the massive infusion of stimulus cash and other spending and the huge deficits would have had a tremendous stimulative effect, wouldn't it?
But it didn't, did it?
It's not that all debt is a problem in itself. It's how much debt compared to income, and what the debt finances. If debt is manageable and invested in capital assets (needed infrastructure, homes, equipment), it is a good and useful tool that can stimulate growth.
Unfortunately, government has never been good at wise choices, so all those trillions of dollars didn't get us any real improvement in infrastructure. Instead, it was directed to pay off failing cronies of the Democrats, mainly unions.
It's as if you used a credit card to pay the light bill and haven't the income to make more than a minimum payment. That's a recipe for default, and that's what the government has been doing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLook at the drop off in GDP growth since the stimulus money started to dry up. During the stimulus years (2009-2010), growth was 3.5%ish. Now, 1% or less. Coincidence?
Nevertheless, my main argument is not that government spending can prevent a recession, but rather that government debt does not cause a recession (as the author argues).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTrillions of dollars went to unions? I doubt you can show any numbers that would back up that claim. The biggest chunks of the stimulus money went for various tax credits/cuts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf the debt actually comes from the market, then the government is drawing away money that might otherwise have been invested.
If the debt is bought by the Federal Reserve, then it's monetized and contributes to inflation.
Then there the fact that the debts need to be re-payed, this crowds other spending and implies much higher taxes down the road.
And we're close to the point where interest rates will have to rise in order for Treasury bonds to sell. If that will even work, China has been adjusting its bond portfolio because its now uncertain if the Treasury bonds it holds will be paid back in un-inflated dollars.
Harvard Business School research "Government Spending Causes Companies to Retrench"
Fiscal Policy Changes What works and what doesn't, to get governments out of the debt pit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo one is forced to buy government bonds. They do so because those bonds are a secure investment. In a turbulent economy, there are not many safe places to put your money.
Also, I'm very skeptical of your argument about China getting paid in un-inflated dollars. Do you have evidence for this?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJim,
Something similar happened in 1978 although not with China with so called "Carter Bonds". The US, in order to stabilize the dollar, should bonds denominated in West German Deutschmarks and Swiss Francs. The Chinese or other major buyers of US Treasuries could require they be denominated in a currency other than the US dollar, quite possibly the Swiss Franc or the Euro. This would eliminate the ability of the Fed or Congress to flood the dollar market and inflate it's way out of debt.
In fact, such Treasuries would probably sell at an interest rate discount to Dollar Treasuries if they occurred.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1) Putting money in treasuries means the money isn't being invested in things that will create jobs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse2) When people don't buy bonds,the govt either taxes the money away, or prints it, which is a form of taxation.
Let me get this straight. You actually think that taking money from a company, and then giving some of that money back to a company, makes that company better off?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse