CEPR - Center for Economic and Policy Research


En Español

Em Português

Other Languages

Home Publications Blogs Beat the Press Fans of National Income Accounting Are Not Surprised by the Weak Recovery

Fans of National Income Accounting Are Not Surprised by the Weak Recovery

Monday, 26 November 2012 05:11

Robert Samuelson is again perplexed by the failure of the economy to recover more rapidly. It is difficult for those of us who understand national income accounting (the stuff we teach in intro econ) to understand the confusion.

Prior to the economic collapse the economy was being driven by a housing bubble. When the bubble burst, we lost more than $600 billion in annual construction demand and more than $500 billion in annual consumption demand. There is no obvious mechanism in the economy to replace this demand.

Samuelson tells us that companies are cautious and reluctant to invest due to the uncertain state of the economy. However the equipment and software share of investment is pretty much back to its pre-recession level. It's not clear why we should expect the share to rise higher, especially at a time when there is so much excess capacity in many sectors.


 Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Consumption is also unusually high relative to disposable income, although below its bubble peak. This drop is also not surprising given the loss of $8 trillion in housing wealth.


Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Samuelson also expresses surprise that there has not been more of a rebound in housing, telling readers:

"The Fed’s low interest rates and plunging home prices (down about a third nationally) might have triggered a strong housing revival."

Of course given that vacancy rates remain close to the record highs hit earlier in the downturn, it is not surprising that construction has not been stronger.

If more people engaged in policy debates learned national income accounting it would eliminate much of the confusion that dominates debates.

Comments (2)Add Comment
Samuelson Propagates Urban Myth
written by Robert Salzberg, November 26, 2012 6:23
Samuelson wrote:

"President Obama’s anti-business rhetoric..."

The stock market has basically doubled since President Obama took office and fin-reg was much weaker than we needed.

If President Obama's rhetoric is "anti-business" than it is because he's being too easy on the monopolies that make us all collectively poorer which is bad for business. (Credit cards, drug companies, telecom etc.)

I just wish for once one reporter would produce the litany of rhetorical statements or at least one statement to back up their accusation of President Obama being anti-business.
written by Brett Greisen, November 28, 2012 12:01
Consumers without $$ to spend can't spend. It's way too simple for Samuelson to understand.

However, he is in the same company as Blankfein, Dimon & far too many CEOs who have forgotten that their employees are consumers/customers.

Write comment

(Only one link allowed per comment)

This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.


Support this blog, donate
Combined Federal Campaign #79613

About Beat the Press

Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He is the author of several books, his latest being The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive. Read more about Dean.