whyroots

The Bureau of Economic Analysis released an advance estimate of Q4 GDP. It's not good. But compare these two headlines: 

Steep Slide in U.S. Economy, but Not as Dire as Forecast, from the New York Times. Phew, dodged a bullet. Sure, GDP shrank 3.8%, but think of how much worse it could have been!

GDP Drops 3.8% as Spending Falls, from the Wall Street Journal. Factual, includes nothing about expectations or forecasts. And the first sentence adds some much needed context: "The U.S. economy contracted at a 3.8% annualized rate in the fourth quarter but the decline would have been worse except that the government counts an unwanted buildup of goods on store shelves as growth." (Emphasis mine.) 

So the Times front-loads its reporting with an optimistic-sounding comparison to the forecasts of economists. But that headline ignores the source of the deviation from expectations -- inventory buildup. Due to accounting convention, the US classifies inventories as investment, though no firm wants to accumulate inventories, and the more there is in inventory, the less the economy has to produce in the future to meet demand. Inventories are bad for firms and an indicator that even if consumer demand picks up, it will not immediately translate into increased production (need to draw down inventories first). So the GDP figure might not have been bad as forecast, but not because things are turning around, but because they haven't hit bottom yet. 

Helpfully, the Journal provides a more sophisticated analysis of the situation, and points out that buildup. Indeed, according to the Journal, GDP contraction was 5.1% excluding accumulation of inventories. That figure is probably closer to what most economists were expecting. Intrade markets had a contract on GDP advance figures at 5% or worse trading at ~60, indicating people expected a 60% chance of that outcome. 

Unfortunately for the dystopians that bought that contract at 60, an accounting convention stood in the way of their payday. This whole episode demonstrates how important it is that a reporter have a solid understanding of his or her subject matter. Otherwise, you might get a happy headline obscuring dire economic news.

***

Meanwhile, some conservative economists have repeatedly made nonsensical objections to the stimulus package. Eugene Fama might be the worst offender, and here's Brad DeLong, Berkeley economist, providing an initial smackdown. 

Fama uses this accounting identity (PI = PS + CS + GS) to argue that government debt spending will crowd out private sector investment and nullify the impact of Obama's stimulus plans. You see, if government savings (GS) go down (deficit spending) and private savings (PS) and corporate savings (CS) remain unchanged, private investment (PI) must decrease. However, as DeLong points out, the private investment figure includes unwanted inventories. Therefore, the accounting identity could hold even while the stimulus does its job and sparks economic activity; as government savings (GS) decrease to spur consumer spending and infrastructure projects, inventories (PI) decrease, but their decline forces companies to restart or expand production to meet demand.

So jump back up to the Journal article up top -- unwanted inventories are expanding and, as accounting rules dictate, it was recorded as an increase in private investment. When the stimulus kicks in and firms sell through inventories, private investment will decline. This is exactly DeLong's point. Fama will win a Nobel Prize some day, and I will never earn a PhD in economics. But I think I can figure this out.

My lovely girlfriend, Liz, is currently rotating in Mulago Hospital (above) in Kampala, the capital of Uganda. We complain a lot about our health care system, and for good reason, but it might serve as a helpful reminder of how well off we are to read about the huge gap in the quality of care and the resources available for the 5,000 - 10,000 daily patients at Mulago. Check out her blog here. I'll be visiting her for two weeks in March (spring break Uganda!).

-- Nathan Huttner

Unlike some other Whyrooters, I am happy with Obama's picks for major economic posts. But I'm not going to name any of them as my favorite Obama cabinet nominee. Instead, I'm going with:

Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy. He is a Nobel Prize winning quantum physicist who, unlike the Bush administration, acknowledges that science actually has the ability to reveal truth, and that good policy requires we respond to those findings. The refusal to acknowledge reality is one of the more consistently baffling elements of the Bush administration, not because I'm shocked now by any of their misbehavior, but because of its dazzling brazenness. After all, it's reality, and readily observable. Chu's appointment also stands in stark contrast to Bush's fox in the henhouse strategy to filling cabinet positions. Spencer Abraham, his first Secretary of Energy, had sponsored a bill to abolish the department. So here's to Steven Chu, a man committed to solving the biggest problems that better energy policy can tackle and with experience in running largescale research programs. Hopefully he will leverage the admittedly meager powers of his office for good ends.

If Chu represents a distinct break from the Bush administration, my least favorite pick promises to continue of some of our worst policies:

Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture. Others have complained about Vilsack's support for ethanol and GMOs. It's neither of these stands that bother me all that much. I still believe there's likely to be some place for ethanol and other biofuels in our country's energy diet, especially cellulosic ethanol. And I like me some GMOs. My issue is agricultural subsidies -- those big, big payments made to farmers to keep them producing food. It's devastating for developing countries' agricultural sectors, and terribly inefficient. Obama has made like he's going to reassess these subsidies for budgetary reasons. Couple of problems with this. One, budgetary considerations are out the windo with the current economic conditions, and farmers will not want to be left out of a stimulus package. Two, Vilsack himself has received subsidies. Oops. Too much of the same -- a secretary with ties to some of the worst policies that remain from our country's past. It damages his credibility as a spokesman, and may stand in the way of much needed reform. Let's hope Obama manages to fight big ag along with saving the economy, stopping global warming, and healing our racial tensions.

-- Nathan Huttner

Congratulations to "bailout," 2008's word of the year. Probably the most deserved award handed out this year, despite my joy in watching the right squirm when Paul Krugman received the Nobel.

Unfortunately, the actual bailout seems to be just about the most hated thing on the planet. Conservatives hate it because it's the government doing something useful and expensive. Liberals hate it because bankers benefit, and bankers are evil.

The conservative hatred I can understand. We're nationalizing the banking sector because the conservatives are so incredibly wrong about how to run an economy. The liberal hatred, however, is like some perverse rewriting of the rule of double effect. The rule of double effect has also gotten a lot of attention lately, mostly in the justification for Israel's shelling of Gaza; it's that rule that allows Israel to claim that the deaths of Palestinian civilian's are Hamas's fault, not Israel's (count me highly dubious). You see, if a great harm comes to someone because you do something good, that's okay, because the good outcome came concomitant with the bad one. Well, in the case of the bailout, it's more like, if a good outcome comes to investment bankers, then all the good you do is nullified because you helped the banker.

Take David Sirota's column in the Sun Journal. Generally, I find it difficult to type while hyperventilating, but I'm not a professional, so I'm impressed by the craftsmanship. (My ability to ply in snark is coming along, however.) I want to focus here on two claims Sirota makes because they're common complaints.

1. He cites the second report filed by the bailout's Congressional oversite committee and repeats its claim that the bailout has had no demonstrable effect on lending. The Treasury does not dispute that claim. Rather, the Treasury points to the fact that the economy has taken a huge turn for the worse and that people don't have many good lending opportunities. In turn, the oversite committee agrees that the economy is bad. Their gripe is not that the program hasn't improved lending, but that it hasn't saved the economy from a tailspin. There is not a single economist I have heard defend the bailout by claiming it would prevent a recession; the shock to the financial system that occurred pre-bailout, that necessitated the bailout, was enough to cause the recession we see. Economists have argued that the bailout was needed to prevent a systemic collapse of the financial system. It worked. The TED spread, the go-to metric for the level of counterparty risk, is well off its historic highs, and there is money out there to be had. Unfortunately, there are not many peoople asking for or receiving loans. If and when the stimulus package is enacted, we will have the financial system and the bailout to thank for any economic stimulus that actually arrives because it will be banks saved by the bailout that will provide working capital for paychecks, inventories, and leases as the nation undertakes infrastructure projects galore.

2. Sirota asks, "Is the bank bailout the best way to stimulate the economy." No. No. No. And it wasn't sold that way. The bank bailout was the best way to save the economy. So why does Obama want a stimulus and the bailout? Doesn't the stimulus make the bailout obsolete? Again, no -- take a look at recent reports that Bank of America and Citigroup are still having big balance sheet problems. The stimulus and bailout are two halves of the same coin. The bailout is necessary to keep banks solvent and healthy enough to lend; the stimulus is necessary to start the economic engine started again. Credit is often described as the oil that allows the country's economy to function; Sirota is complaining that adding oil to a dry engine isn't starting it. No kidding. But try starting the engine sans oil and ... kerplunk.

I'm all for calling Obama out when he's straying (see my last post). But asking for bailout  money so it can be used when necessary is simply good policy, not the maintenance of a kleptocracy, as Sirota writes. Problems at Bank of America and Citigroup suggest that the financial sector still needs a government crutch -- probably a more significant one. I agree with Sirota and other critics that there needs to be more transparency, and that the government should push for untenable mortgages to be renegotiated, not foreclosed. But I remain a fan of a bailout because it has so far delivered, despite a lack of transparency and a frustrating absence of strategic coherence. I want to stand with those on the left that call for greater transparency and good governance. But I want allies who are intellectually honest, not as bankrupt as our banks.

Time machine it back to April 2001. Where were you? Let's see... I was finishing my junior year of high school, reading the Aeneid and playing lots of Tekken Tag Tournament. Fellow Whyrooter Kate Klonick and I mostly hated each other, though now we mostly don't hate each other. (<3 u, Kate!) In those days maybe you, like I, were still naively clinging to the hope that maybe the Bush presidency wouldn't be so bad. After all, how much damage could the man do in four short years?

Meanwhile, between New Haven and New York City, en route to a professional wrestling event, Barbara Bush, the President's daughter and a freshman at Yale, lost her Secret Service detail when her car took the EZ Pass lane and her detail was left waiting to pay with cash. Rumpus, Yale's storied tabloid and humor magazine, published an account of the shenanigans, which they were forced to remove from their website for security reasons. The Washington Post and Newsweek, among other national outlets, picked up the story.

Coming out of the Clinton years, these were the kinds of Presidential/First Family shenanigans the press was ready and willing to cover. Sexual impropriety, alcohol-fueled bad behavior, Secret Service officers left in the dust -- the national press had developed a taste for the fluffy stuff of the National Enquirer. Obviously, Barbara Bush's Secret Service mix up was mild; it made Rumpus's front page, but no one else's. But the fact that the Post and others picked it up at all demonstrates  the degree to which the press -- we all -- had been lulled to complacency by the booming 90s.

Now, we know how badly that cost us. When we first lifted our heads from the trough early on a September morning, we realized we should all start paying closer attention. But we hardly knew where to look. Luckily, we had embedded reporters, we had night-vision cameras on Baghdad rooftops, we had Colin Powell's sterling reputation gilding pounds and pounds of yellow cake. We've finally come to, but it's worth remembering what our collective complacency cost us. I was a naive high school junior; now I know how much damage can be done in a four-year term, and how badly that damage can be compounded by another. The last thing we can allow is the ascendancy of a progressive administration to lull us once again.

-- Nathan Huttner

School's out for the holidays, so I get to feel like a real, live blogger, typing this post in my PJs. With the world collapsing around our ears and the weight of history on our shoulders, this might seem like an incredibly luxurious thing to do. But if our generation is to have any shot at solving any of the world’s problems, our approach will involve the interwebs.

Back when I was 14, my biggest problem was finding a girl to make out with, and AOL Instant Messenger was there. Back then, it was much easier to flirt from behind a keyboard than face-to-face. Sadly, we can’t spin-the-bottle our way out of the mess we’re in, but the interwebs are still the sea we swim in and can still be useful. We’re creating networks of friends that span the globe; we are constructing political coalitions that win elections; and we are spontaneously freaking out hundreds of people in Grand Central. I don’t really need to tell you how transformative the internet is – you know this -- I just wanted to tip my hat to the hero before moving on to the villain: irony.

Yes, irony, protector of hipsters, destroyer of worlds. Irony started as harmless fun, and a dash of irony is still preferred when opening a blog post with a saccharine ode to technology (see above ironic use of “interwebs”). But as the dominant mode of contemporary discourse, it’s completely bankrupt. Many of our generation’s brightest lights ran off to make big bucks as modern day alchemists in the financial sector. Irony came for many of those that were left, leading them off to wallow in ironic over-privileged gloom and designer T-shirts. Those that remain need some help in turning this thing around.

So, in these times of economic hardship, with bankers returning to grad school and hipsters too poor to silkscreen, I say let’s give irony a rest and stare the problems of the world and our own failings full in the face. That will be the only way to take up the mantle as the next "Greatest Generation." Seriously.

-- Nathan Huttner

It's the end of the semester, and I have some time to blog again. I also have some time to take a step back from those problems of life that take on an enormous psychic scale (like final exams), but, in the grand scheme of things, are not such a big deal. 

As we saw a couple of weeks ago when we whyrooters tried to figure out how to spend $5 billion, we all came to the conclusion that it's really not enough money to solve any of the world's biggest problems. Give me $5 billion, on the other hand, and you would solve my money problems many times over. (I figure $5 million would pretty much set me for life, so $5 billion would pay for 1,000 comfortable lifetimes.) As it turns out, I'm only one of billions of people on the planet, and at that scale my money problems don't amount to much.

Of course our entire race's problems are infinitessimal when you account for the planets around the 70 sextillion visible stars scientists had found by 2003. That's a lot of planets, and (very likely) a lot of intelligent life. While Nobel prize winners have already started thinking about the very big problems we're likely to face interacting with all of these stars, including the economics of interstellar trade, the sheer number of aliens and their problems likely dwarfs the human race's complaints.

But that number of stars is again dwarfed by the number of parallel universes that could exist. Recent observations suggest that the anti-gravitational power of dark energy is within 5 percent of the cosmological constant Einstein hypothesized as the force preventing the universe from collapsing on itself. Unfortunately, if this finding holds, there may have to be 10 to the 500th parallel universes to explain the existence of ours. 

Don't these numbers mislead us about our own importance? After all, the scale of the universe(s) can't convince any of us that our own existence isn't pretty damn important to ourselves. To this I say: we don't actually exist. So add another nesting doll to our set -- our 10 to the 500th parallel universes (or at least our one universe) exist within goodness knows how many parallel simulations of our universes. 

I think all of us have had the experience of staring up at the stars and getting an inkling of our tininess. Thank goodness we couldn't see more than those 70 sextillion. 


-- Nathan Huttner

I spent three days a week this past semester discussing Faith and Globalization with Yale students from the business school, divinity school, law school, international relations program and college. This issue of religion's role in politics and public policy-making came up often. For the divinity school students and many of the other religious people in the class, modern liberalism had long alienated them, silencing their religious perspectives. For them, John Rawls' Political Liberalism was the epitome of the left's silencing of religious voices; his argument that one should only offer religious reasons for a position if they are backed up with other, commonly held values as justification limited debate and forced religious believers to artificially separate their private lives from their public ones. 

I tend to come down on Rawls' side of this question. First, I don't think the government should be in the business of legislating to fit anyone's religious idea of right and wrong. If your argument only makes sense to members of your own faith, then it shouldn't be the basis for governing everyone. Second, it's hard to distinguish between political speech and policy action in a democracy. One might say, "Sure, we don't want our government behaving that way, but what's wrong with citizens arguing for a policy on the basis of religion?" I'd say there's nothing strictly wrong with it, but I wouldn't ever want any government acting on the basis of that argument. That makes religio-political argumentation rather odd -- permissible only if it doesn't actually convince anyone in power. But of course it can -- and does -- and that's what unsettles me.

So how can progressives welcome the new, evangelical members of our coalition? With eyes wide open. These folks are going to be helpful allies when it comes to specific issues, but in the long-run their governing philosophy is to be avoided. But how hypocritical is this -- to say on one hand, "Use religion to convince your rank and file to support mutual ends," and on the other, "Don't bring your religion into the public square"? More importantly, how dangerous is it to legitimize religio-political argumentation from the left? Once the left and right agree on religion's place in political life, will it ever leave?

When religion enters politics, it's not a one-way street. A congregation seeped in political debate is an ugly thing, and it's one reason that even in the extremely liberal churches I've attended, the ministers shy away from overtly political statements. There's a fascinating scene from the 2006 film, The Wind that Shakes the Barley, in which politics intrudes on the church in a literal sense, with an argument breaking out between the priest and a parishioner (you can watch it here). So while some religious liberals might wish for their religious points of view legitimized by fellow, secular progressives, it might not be long before they find the diry work of politics spoils the harmony of religious communities. Rawls wanted to keep religion out of politics; it might not be long before religion agrees.

-- Nathan Huttner

"We must patiently explain why taxing or regulating noble things (like work, saving, and entrepreneurial risk-taking) means you’ll get less of what makes America great and why subsidizing other things (like idleness and single parenthood) means you’ll get more of the destructive behaviors that ultimately will drag us down."

— An excerpt from a piece in the National Review by the vice president of government relations for the Heritage Foundation.

"We must patiently explain ..." Yes, you must. Because I don't get it. To aid in the patient explanation, I will lay out the ways in which I don't get it in handy list form.

1.  "Taxing or regulating noble things ... means you'll get less" of them. Really? What if we tax these "noble things" to overhaul our educational system? Some potential entrepreneurs will never start businesses due to slightly higher taxes, but as many if not more potential entrepreneurs could be created by access to quality primary and secondary education. I'd argue that one dollar more in taxes spent on education generates more entrepreneurship than it destroys -- at least in our current situation. 

2. Taxation and regulation give us "less of what makes America great." Great according to whom? I say America is greatest when equality of opportunity truly exists. I say America is greatest when corporations cannot pollute the environment, substitute marketing for innovation, and provide low quality services at high prices. America is rife with market failures -- failures to fully realize the productivity of our people and failures of corporations ignoring the true costs of their activities. Taxation and regulation are critical to fixing what the market can't, and America is greatest when those failures aren't in the way of progress.

3. "Subsidizing other things ... means you'll get more of the destructive behaviors." Show of hands: How many of you are unemployed, impoverished single mothers because of the wonders of food stamps and welfare? (Crickets.) As much as the left values the struggles of single mothers, the right demonizes recipients of welfare at a rate of two-to-one. Some people become convinced that hard work can't help them get ahead and they resign themselves to government support. But for many, there is real stigma attached to unemployment and underemployment, and if it can be avoided or minimized, it is. Conservatives often have a hard time figuring out what besides money motivates people. I'd argue the respect of one's children is a pretty powerful motivator.

4. Idleness and single parenthood "ultimately will drag us down." Probably not. I think the past five months have made it pretty darn clear what's dragging us down. Credit rating agencies that can't accurately rate credit. Executives tasked with maximizing shareholder value who destroyed all of it. An administration that has crowed about how low taxes spur growth while overseeing the weakest recovery and worst recession in a half century. It's hard to get more "ultimate" than destroying 37% of the equity in the stock market and jacking up the national debt by trillions of dollars. And it wasn't poor single mothers. It was rich married men.

So there. I've laid it out. I am happy to listen to a patient explanation.

-- Nathan Huttner

Check out Nick Kristoff's column in today's NYTimes. I was all into spending $5 billion on food, but apparently condiments (like iodized salt), are also drastically absent from people's diets and make a huge difference. So I will now spend my $5 billion on salty food, rich in iodine. 


-- Nathan Huttner