Economic thoughts on this-

<p>My understanding is that Levy is a mainstream economist. Not one of Keynesian persuasion.</p>

<p>By David A. Levy and Srinivas Thiruvadanthai</p>

<p>Take a scary idea that sounds reasonable, repeat it often enough, and people begin to take it as truth. Unfortunately, current beliefs about US Treasury debt and deficits are a prime example of this principle: the US is being scared into seeking exactly the wrong sort of policy.</p>

<p>Many opinion leaders claim: “America is on the road to becoming the next Greece or Ireland,” “The deficit is destroying our children’s future,” or “We need to sharply cut the deficit now before it’s too late.”</p>

<p>All wrong!</p>

<p>In fact, the US economy needs big deficits now, and we are nowhere near too late to act. The country can safely run big federal deficits for the next several years without them leading to default, inflation, a collapsing dollar, slower economic growth or onerous taxes on our children.</p>

<p>Even if the government tries to sharply reduce its fiscal shortfall over the next few years, it will almost inevitably run big deficits anyway. While Washington needs to get to work on long-term fiscal reform, attempts to cut the deficit sharply in the short term will damage the economy and prove self-defeating.</p>

<p>The country is presently suffering from an unusual economic condition: a contained depression. The economy needs deficit spending for now to avoid another Great Depression. (Yes, a recovery from the recession is well underway, but within a longer depression—there were recoveries during the 1930s, too.)</p>

<p>Without large deficits, corporate profits would plunge, leading to skyrocketing unemployment and another Great Depression.</p>

<p>Why? For the first time since the 1930s, the private sector is in the midst of a long period of deleveraging. Balance sheets have become much too big to be supported by incomes and they must shrink for years. And that’s a momentous problem.</p>

<p>Aggregate private sector balance sheet contraction makes it impossible for the private economy to generate profits on its own. This point isn’t taught in economics 101, but it’s a fact. To sustain profits (essentially, businesses’ rise in wealth) the economy as a whole has to keep increasing its wealth, which is impossible if private balance sheets aren’t expanding. Total assets must be increasing solidly, and liabilities must be rising to finance these increases: no debt creation, no asset creation, no wealth creation, and no profits. The last time the private sector deleveraged was in the early 1930s: wealth creation turned negative, the entire business sector suffered an operating loss and the economy crashed. In the present, milder episode, the rate of wealth creation is the weakest since the second world war.</p>

<p>But there is a way to support profits during private sector deleveraging. This is through very large government deficits, which pump wealth from the public sector into the private economy. Profits have roared back over the past two years because the federal government is using debt to supplement private purchasing power, boosting businesses’ revenues relative to expenses.</p>

<p>Slashing the deficit now would cut corporate profits, causing another recession. That would trigger new financial crises since private balance sheets are still overextended. Falling tax revenues would widen the deficit all over again. There would be little, if any, deficit reduction, just more misery and public frustration.</p>

<p>This contained depression, during which private balance sheets shrink to healthier, sustainable levels, won’t last forever, but it will persist for a number of years.</p>

<p>Eventually, all the deleveraging will have created circumstances for a vibrant revival of investment, credit expansion, and wealth creation. Why? Because private debt levels will be low, and the lack of financing of new investment will have left the capital stock inadequate, ageing, and obsolete. Returns on new investment will be overwhelmingly attractive.</p>

<p>In this age of revival, surging investment will mean increasing wealth, profits, economic growth, and government revenue. The federal deficit will narrow rapidly and the debt will shrink relative to gross domestic product, as during the years after world war two. Until then, it is far better to contain the damage of private deleveraging by tolerating federal deficits than to allow another Great Depression.</p>

<p>The costs and dangers of running large deficits under present circumstances have been grossly exaggerated. Most countries have relatively low scope to carry debt, but a few, including the US, have much higher capacity. Comparisons of the US with Greece and Ireland break down on many levels, such as tax-collecting capacity and control of the currency in which the debt is issued.</p>

<p>The present tax and spending policies in the US are hardly optimal, and over the long term changes in government programmes will need to be made. For now, people may reasonably disagree on how deficits ought to be run, but over the next several years, large deficits will remain both essential and virtually inevitable.</p>

<p>David A. Levy is chairman and Srinivas Thiruvadanthai is managing director and director of research at the Jerome Levy Forecasting Center LLC. Their paper, “Uncle Sam Won’t Go Broke” is available here.</p>

<p>Not saying I disagree but it sounds * exactly* like a Keynesian approach to me.</p>

<p>Honestly, I don’t think anyone has the stomach to increase the federal debt right now nor the budget deficits. Unfortunately, this was exactly the prevailing attitude at the start of the Great Depression as well as in Japan.</p>

<p>If you have a subscription to the New Yorker, they have a wonderful article about Keynes in this month’s issue called “The Demand Doctor”.</p>

<p>Mom- I think it is a Keynesian approach. Levy is a mainstream economist who happens to think we need that approach now. That would not be his approach during “normal economic” conditions. I think he wants to have the “medicine” match the illness.</p>

<p>Let’s get the printing presses working double shifts!</p>

<p>We can just inflate our way out of it later.</p>

<p>This is my concern-Even if the government tries to sharply reduce its fiscal shortfall over the next few years, it will almost inevitably run big deficits anyway. While Washington needs to get to work on long-term fiscal reform, attempts to cut the deficit sharply in the short term will damage the economy and prove self-defeating.</p>

<p>The country is presently suffering from an unusual economic condition: a contained depression. The economy needs deficit spending for now to avoid another Great Depression. (Yes, a recovery from the recession is well underway, but within a longer depression—there were recoveries during the 1930s, too.)</p>

<p>Without large deficits, corporate profits would plunge, leading to skyrocketing unemployment and another Great Depression.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>From what I understand, Keynes did not believe in that approach during normal economic times either. Only when the economy was faltering.</p>

<p>I tend to agree with this approach but I really don’t see that happening - I don’t think anyone in Washington has the political will to do it. Cutting the budget and reducing the deficit is only going to put more people out of work and it’s not hard to see a downward spiral from there.</p>

<p>Seems like history has a habit of repeating itself. You think we would learn by now. :)</p>

<p>I heard today an international employer in our area is going to start cutting jobs (again) next week. </p>

<p>Forget Hiring: Some Firms Are Weighing More Layoffs
[News</a> Headlines](<a href=“http://www.cnbc.com/id/44890855]News”>http://www.cnbc.com/id/44890855)</p>

<p>Although the world is probably not going to end in 2012, I predict it’s going to be an ugly year.</p>

<p>Not sure what this has to do with college admissions, but let me throw my two cents in.</p>

<p>I totally disagree.</p>

<p>When President Obama took office, he tried to get Germany to go along with his massive government stimulus efforts.</p>

<p>Germany refused.</p>

<p>It went in a different direction.</p>

<p>Now Germany is doing well, and the US is not.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>For the record, we are allowed to talk about anything but college admissions in the Parents Cafe (okay, technically not politics either). </p>

<p>Unfortunately, through no fault of their own, Germany is about to run into rough waters also.</p>

<p>[AFP:</a> German economy to ‘grind to a halt next year’](<a href=“http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gCINncf1jDBuerpX68GbDbAnszpw?docId=CNG.d9529d7f75a4ac19ba01d71e2ca6c731.7b1]AFP:”>http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gCINncf1jDBuerpX68GbDbAnszpw?docId=CNG.d9529d7f75a4ac19ba01d71e2ca6c731.7b1)</p>

<p>We are at a level of about $50,000 U.S. debt per person. (Thats per person, not per taxpayer. 15 trillion debt divided by 300 million people). I’m struggling with that number, since if you did it per member of taxpaying families, it goes to about 100,000 federal debt per person in those families, depending on which assumptions you make.</p>

<p>I suppose if interest rates are about 4% or so, the taxpayers of the country might be able to service that amount of debt, ($4,000 of interest charges per person in taxpaying families). But it certainly would not be easy.</p>

<p>All of the “prescriptions” proposed today are too simple. We’re not going back to the great days of the post war boom and the fed-propped prosperity of the 80s and 90s.</p>

<p>I haven’t read the US won’t go broke paper yet, but Buffett made the same comment in the interview he did with CHarlie Rose. The reason is that we can print our dollars. I’m sure the people who lived in Germany after WWI might have some observations about that which might be relevant.</p>

<p>Well, I read the article (have to look a little bit to find it without registering). I think its pretty well written, and actually has a lot of things in it that I agree with. Its basic theme is what I was trying to say about not returning to the prosperity years. He doesn’t rule it out eventually, but predicts it may take ten years to get a normal economy restarted.</p>

<p>The author is correct…now is thr time for the government to take on large deficits…</p>

<p>Also…The United States has a net worth in the trillions of dollars.</p>

<p>Many Americans are actually creditors of US debt…so the 50,000 figure is phony. A lot of the money borrowed by the US is loaned by its own citizens.</p>

<p>The debt only looks at only one part of the balance sheet.</p>

<p>I understand very little about economics.</p>

<p>I do understand that the last 4 years has been the perfect storm of events. I can appreciate that there are times when running a deficit is not all bad and we as a country have been doing a great job of it. So when is it going to start working to turn things around?</p>

<p>I hope this thread is constructive because there is a lot I’d like to better understand.</p>

<p>I have another point of view on this topic, neither stimulus nor austerity is going to work.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is my worry–that we’ll end up starving the economy right when it needs some more oxygen and we’ll end up like Japan. </p>

<p>We really need housing to pick up, but until we get all the foreclosures through the system, that isn’t going to happen.</p>

<p>We already have huge deficits. As you can see, because we have deficits, our economy is doing great! Wait… that’s not true, is it?</p>

<p>The reality is that the stock market is not going to increase 11 fold in 20 years (1000 in 1983, 11000 in 2000). And the reality is that home do not automatically double in value every 5 or 10 years. Americans are buying more than they can afford. It has to change.</p>

<p>Of course we need more debt (as I’ve been saying all along). The question is not the level of debt, what we spend it on. Tax giveaways for Obama’s millionaire friends doesn’t cut it.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Of course, deficit spending and (over)stimulating the economy during normal or boom times was exactly what US government policy was for the years prior to the recession. Which meant that, instead of having little debt (or even a surplus) which would have made deficit spending more palatable, the US went into the recession already running massive deficits that were made worse by the recession.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If the banks were a little less eager to foreclose, and a little more willing to modify mortgages, that would help.</p>

<p>Mini:</p>

<p>Not sure what any of this has to do with college admissions, but with respect to your comment that it depends on what the government spends money on:</p>

<p>Do you mean like spending millions of the taxpayers’ dollars down here in Florida to build a turtle crossing tunnel ???</p>

<p>Or building guard rails around dried up lakes?</p>

<p>Or renovating theatres that remain unused after the renovations?</p>

<p>Those are the kind of things stimulus money was spent on.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And therein lies the problem, Had we not been convinced the good times were going to roll on forever and had we not decided to conduct two wars simultaneously, we would be in the position to run deficits right now and it wouldn’t be a problem. Unfortunately, we were in the hole to begin with and digging ourselves deeper is going to be a hard sell. Not just to our citizens but to the world.</p>

<p>Deficits have nothing to do with how we got into our current economic situation. We got here because of the massive housing bubble coupled with the deregulation of the finance and banking industries that led them to take on massive amounts of risk tied to the housing bubble. Add the consumer who was spending way more than they could actually afford and it was the perfect storm.</p>

<p>I don’t think we are going to be able to spend our way out of it (maybe we could but with the mix of politicians currently in Washington it’s not going to happen). And I think it will be a decade or more before we get back to pre-crisis levels. We are just going to have to de-leverage and bring our lifestyles back in line with the rest of the world. It’s a bitter pill to swallow but, realistically, we have been able to live so much better than everyone else because we were doing it on debt and inflated housing and stock prices.</p>