1
   

Economic trends and their policy implications

 
 
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 11:23 pm
I wanted to clarify a few things that came up in the "Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked" thread. I also wanted to provide a new thread for this topic to un-hijack BumbleBeeBoogie's thread.

timberlandko wrote:
Since 1962, the average Budget Deficit as percentage of GDP has been 2.19%, marked by the extremes of 1983's 6.0% Deficit and 2000's Surplus of 2.4%. In 37 of those 42 years, there has been a budget deficit, in 5 there has been a surplus. Taken alone, the average deficit for the period has been 2.66%. For the 20 year period 1984 - 2004, the average budget deficit has been 2.32%, deficits having been recorded for 16 of those 20 years, ranging from 1985's 5.1% shortfall to the relatively small 0.3% deficit of 1997. Considering only the deficits themselves, the average of the 16 deficits recorded over the past 20 years has been 3.31%.
Data: Congressional Budget Office: The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2005 to 2014 (Download note: 3.2 MB pdf file), Appendix F; Historical Data


This is only half the story, or rather, a third of the story. While you might be doing well in the financial markets, and I laud your obvious skills, the broader story merits a change in course. In particular, while you've provided some good data on budget deficits and other economic indicators, you've neglected recent trends in the last four years and the current account deficit. Data on these are what trouble me.

The last four years have heralded a swing from more than a 2% budget surplus to a 4% deficit. This is an unprecedented turnaround, and if our government continues to spend at such a level with such low tax returns, we could quickly break previous absolute budget deficit levels. See http://www.cbpp.org/10-14-04bud.htm. We have already broken several records. That same paper notes:

• At 3.6 percent of GDP, the 2004 deficit marks the fourth consecutive year of fiscal deterioration, the first time this has happened since the U.S. entered World War II.

• At 3.6 percent of GDP, the 2004 deficit is up from the 2003 level of 3.5 percent of GDP and is the highest level since 1993.

• The deficit increased in 2004 even though the recession officially ended in November 2001. This is the first time since before the Depression of the 1930s that the deficit has continued to increase this far into a recovery.

• At $413 billion, the 2004 deficit was $36 billion higher than the 2003 deficit, which stood at $377 billion.

Unfortunately, budget deficits are only a small part of the fiscal problem. We're also experiencing an unprecedented current account deficit at around 5.5 percent of GDP?-this is what makes the budget deficit such a problem. See,e.g. http://www.perjacobsson.org/2004/100304.pdf. Although you can find this information on hundreds of sources, Summers' paper also provides some predictions on future current account deficits if we continue on our present path. I urge you to read these predictions with a grain of salt; the devaluation of the dollar will probably slow down the growth of our current account deficit (Summers also doesn't appear to believe that we'll experience complete continuity). However, the threat of the "twin" deficits is more real than ever, and it would take a major (and possibly painful) devaluation to fully turn around, dent, or even significantly slow down the deficit.

While I gladly take notice of the fact that employment has gone up in the recent past, and that our GDP is heading in the right direction, underlying problems persist. I pray that the administration and Congress don't simply look at the sunny side of this story. The "twin deficits" and present trends in spending/taxing caution against optimistic blindness. I hope that Bush's apparent inflexibility and aversion to empiricism don't extend to his fiscal policy?-we simply cannot repeat the last four years.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,583 • Replies: 21
No top replies

 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Nov, 2004 12:25 pm
Steppenwolf - you're presumably familiar with Markov switching processes in times of international upheavals.

Include the deflationary effects of the fall in our exchange rate in your model and you'll see that no argument can be made for tax increases. As to % of deficit/GDP the really large numbers - far exceeding ours now - were observed during the FDR administrations.
0 Replies
 
Steppenwolf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Nov, 2004 06:22 pm
HofT wrote:
Steppenwolf - you're presumably familiar with Markov switching processes in times of international upheavals.

Include the deflationary effects of the fall in our exchange rate in your model and you'll see that no argument can be made for tax increases. As to % of deficit/GDP the really large numbers - far exceeding ours now - were observed during the FDR administrations.


You have a lot of dots to connect here before I can accept this. You can't name an econometric model (like Markov switching) and expect me to agree with your conclusions unless you give me an actual argument. Where are you going here? Details…

You should start by explaining how "deflationary effects" (deflation) would result from the devaluation of the dollar. Perhaps I should give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that was a typo. You should expect the exact opposite relationship.
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Nov, 2004 08:10 am
Would you expect the opposite effect? In an open economy? Think real variables, not monetary, in a ceteris paribus world of neutral monetary policy.

If you still don't see why depreciation of the numeraire is deflationary, you may want to look up the real balance effect.

And if that doesn't do it either, nice meeting you!
0 Replies
 
Steppenwolf
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Nov, 2004 06:16 pm
HofT wrote:
Would you expect the opposite effect? In an open economy? Think real variables, not monetary, in a ceteris paribus world of neutral monetary policy.

If you still don't see why depreciation of the numeraire is deflationary, you may want to look up the real balance effect.


I have to call you out, HofT. You're misusing jargon, and you're pretending you know more than you do. We're talking about the depreciation of the dollar, and if you think that "dollar" and "numeraire" are interchangeable words, you're pulling words off the web without a clue as to what they mean. The numeraire is a common denominator for currencies (like gold in a gold standard system). If anything, you would compare a specific currency against the numeraire?-you wouldn't say the numeraire is depreciating as a stand-alone; that makes no sense. And if you want to use the phrase "depreciation of the numeraire" (a strange phrase that no one uses) as shorthand for movements in the value of the dollar (i.e, the "numeraire is depreciating against the dollar," which, again, no one would put it that way), it would imply a comparative increase in the value of the dollar, not a decrease. This plainly isn't what we're talking about or what the dollar is experiencing at this very moment?-quite the contrary.

Second of all, the "real balance effect" doesn't explain why a devalued currency would lead to deflation. The idea behind the "real balance effect" is that there will be a rise in real value of liquid balances as a consequence of a decline in prices, which should cause a consumption increase. You struck out on this one because a devalued dollar does not imply a reduction in the price of goods?-it implies the opposite, if anything. By the way, the "real balance effect" is Econ 101, so you shouldn't use it unless you know what it means?-anyone with even the slightest economics background will know that you're bluffing.

Thirdly, "real" and "monetary" are not antonyms. Neither are they synonyms?-it makes no sense to use them in contradistinction to one another. The contrast you're probably looking for is "real" and "nominal."

Finally, I've never heard anyone claim that the devaluation of the dollar would cause deflation. You might want to bring that to the attention of the Federal Reserve; they seem to expect the opposite relationship (as do I).
Quote:
Effects of Devaluation
A significant danger is that by increasing the price of imports and stimulating greater demand for domestic products, devaluation can aggravate inflation. If this happens, the government may have to raise interest rates to control inflation, but at the cost of slower economic growth.

Source

No, currency devaluation doesn't always lead to inflation, but that's partially a function of the Fed's tinkering. Some might also claim that the relationship between currency devaluation and inflation isn't as strong as popularly thought, but I've never heard anyone sane claiming the opposite relationship.

Don't bluff online. Sooner or later you'll find someone who knows what you're talking about, even if you don't. I'm no PhD wielding economist, but I also never use jargon I don't understand, and I appear to have a much firmer grasp of economics than you. In any event, my wife has her PhD in econ., and she agrees that your posts don't make any sense. If you wish to contest this, please write a fuller argument rather than writing, "Steppenwolf, you should look at [fill in the blank with misused, random jargon]."
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Nov, 2004 06:23 pm
That was a long time coming.
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 07:49 am
If that's your wife's economics you're quoting, maybe she could try posting herself - you're completely unaware of the deflationary effects of a devaluation, obviously, and no amount of explanation will fill your "missing dots".

What's her Ph.D. in (precision, please, i.e. international, monetary, mathematical etc) and from which school?
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 07:52 am
Ah, Free Duck is another mathematical economist? Awaiting her contributions to what seems to be a very crowded field today <G>
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 07:57 am
No mathematical economist here. Just someone who is immediately suspicious of someone who is more concerned about their posts sounding intelligent than about getting their ideas across.
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 07:59 am
Getting ideas across to whom?

All disciplines require some knowledge of technical terms, and I don't propose to teach an introductory econometrics class online.
0 Replies
 
Steppenwolf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 08:03 am
HofT wrote:
If that's your wife's economics you're quoting, maybe she could try posting herself - you're completely unaware of the deflationary effects of a devaluation, obviously, and no amount of explanation will fill your "missing dots".

What's her Ph.D. in (precision, please, i.e. international, monetary, mathematical etc) and from which school?


If you want to argue, then argue. You're spinning your wheels with all this stuff about my wife.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 08:04 am
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
0 Replies
 
Steppenwolf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 08:05 am
HofT wrote:
Getting ideas across to whom?

All disciplines require some knowledge of technical terms, and I don't propose to teach an introductory econometrics class online.


That may be true, but you consistently use technical terms incorrectly. I don't buy it.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 08:07 am
HofT wrote:
If that's your wife's economics you're quoting, maybe she could try posting herself - you're completely unaware of the deflationary effects of a devaluation, obviously, and no amount of explanation will fill your "missing dots".


Sounds like most of the world is unaware of the deflationary effects of a devaulation. Perhaps you could post some supporting evidence instead of simply calling Steppenwolf names?

HofT wrote:
All disciplines require some knowledge of technical terms, and I don't propose to teach an introductory econometrics class online.


If I had a nickle for all the times I heard someone refuse to explain their BS this way....
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 08:11 am
Ah, King Arthur looking for a "nickle" (sic), and not finding either the "nickle" or any name-calling in my posts.... Keep looking.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 08:21 am
HofT wrote:
Ah, King Arthur looking for a "nickle" (sic), and not finding either the "nickle" or any name-calling in my posts.... Keep looking.


lol. Feel free to scrutinize all my posts for typos and misspellings. I'm sure I've made my share. Meanwhile, still no support for your BS.
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 08:25 am
So, King Arthur, to sum up, on this thread we have 2 admitted non-economists, you and Free Duck, and one who thinks the discipline is contagious because he married someone with a Ph.D. in it. LOL sounds like a great assembly, please don't let me disturb your deliberations further - and Happy Thanksgiving to you all <G>
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 08:30 am
And one who is so satisfied with her own intelligence and education that she can't be bothered to engage in actual conversation with the uneducated masses without condescension and personally insulting remarks. And who also apparently believes that a person cannot discuss economics without a ph.d. in the subject.

But it's all good. Happy turkey to you too.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 08:32 am
on a more personal level, my mother does wear combat boots.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2004 08:37 am
I bet she knows what a numeraire is! Or maybe that's derriere.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Economic trends and their policy implications
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/15/2026 at 11:19:55