CEPR - Center for Economic and Policy Research

Multimedia

En Español

Em Português

Other Languages

Home Publications Blogs Beat the Press When Did CBO Stop Being Wrong About the Economy: Robert Samuelson Edition

When Did CBO Stop Being Wrong About the Economy: Robert Samuelson Edition

Print
Thursday, 07 February 2013 08:14

Robert Samuelson is looking at the latest projections for the budget and the economy from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and struggling with their implications for the deficit. He presents the three reasons that CBO gives for reducing the debt from the projected levels:

1) fear of financial crises;

2) crowding out of investment;

3) we may need to borrow more in the future to cover the costs of a war or natural disaster.

It's worth briefly addressing these concerns, but first we need to note that CBO's track record on the economy in recent years has been nothing short of abysmal. If you want some cheap fun, take a look at CBO's projections for the economy from Janaury of 2008 (Table E-1). Get a load of that 4.8 percent unemployment rate that we are supposed be enjoying right now following three years in which GDP growth averaged 3.3 percent (and that's with no recession in 2008-2009).

CBO's predictive ability had not improved much a year later when the economy was in the middle of the free fall following the collapse of Lehman. Its projections from March of 2009 hugely underestimated the severity of the downturn and projected that the economy would have largely bounced back to full employment by the end of 2011, even if there was no stimulus from the government or extraordinary measures taken by the Federal Reserve Board.

These projections were about as wrong as they could possibly be. We would have done every bit as well finding a drunk person on the street and asking him for his economic forecasts for the next five years.

 

The point here is not to beat up on CBO. (Actually it is somewhat irksome that the job security of economists who completely mess up is never in jeopardy, unlike the custodians, sales clerks and dishwashers who end up unemployed because of their mistakes.) The point is that CBO's track record in making predictions about the economy has been nothing short of atrocious. The models it used in 2008 and 2009 were basically worthless. Is there any reason to think that it has a much better grasp on the economy in 2013 than it did four or five years ago?

If we look at the specific reasons laid out by Samuelson we can place concerns over the debt in better prespective. The first one, fears of a financial crisis, we should all just give a hearty laugh. What do Samuelson and CBO think they are talking about? They completely missed the last financial crisis, now they consider themselves experts to warn about the next one.

What would this look like and why would it occur? We borrow in dollars. We print dollars. Does anyone think that financial markets will become fearful that we will forget how to print dollars? There is a story that can be told about Zimbabwe-style run-away inflation, but we are so far from this scenario that even Samuelson could not tell it with a straight face.

Going out of order, let's take number 3, we might need to borrow because of a war or natural disaster. Well, this is really just number 1 again in different clothes. Fine, we need to borrow. What is the scenario in which we will not be able to borrow large amounts of money in our own currency? In fact, the best way to ensure that the U.S. can borrow is to ensure that we have a strong economy, which will be best done by building up infrastructure, improving education and keeping our labor force employed and gaining skills. According to CBO's latest estimates, the economy has lost trillions of dollars in potential output because we have not kept people employed and sustained the growth of our capital stock through the downturn.

This gets us to number 2, the old crowding out story. There is undoubtedly some truth to this, but people should understand the logic of the argument.

If we have more debt in circulation, this means that people have more government bonds as a store of wealth. In other words, because we had deficit spending to support the economy today, people will have more wealth in the future. Since people's consumption is in part a function of their wealth, they will consume more in the future because they own more government debt. If people are spending more money on consumption in 2023, then there will be less money for investment. This is how government debt crowds out private investment.

Note that housing wealth and stock wealth also crowd out private investment in the same way. if house prices go up people will consume more, leaving fewer resources for investment. Similarly, if stock prices go up then people will consume more, thereby also crowding out private investment. Higher stock prices do have the offsetting effect of making it easier for firms to issue stock to finance investment. However the experience of the late 1990s bubble was that the effect of stock wealth on consumption is larger than the effect on investment. Consumption rose by more measured as share of GDP in the late 1990s than did investment.

In this sense we can only share Samuelson's and CBO's concern that government debt will crowd out investment insofar as we are also worried about house prices and stock prices being too high. If we are not worried about rising house and stock prices, then we should not be worried about the effect of government debt on investment either.

Comments (5)Add Comment
debt doesn't crowd out, spending crowds out...
written by pete, February 07, 2013 10:50
Taking steel and plastic and building drones and tanks and such removes these from use as consumption goods. Buying health care for folks at inflated health professional prices crowds out spending on more fun things. Debt, per se, as you point out, is zero sum. We owe ourselves, no crowding out to see here, move along. (Clearly foreign debt is different, but if that gets too big we can default, as is the Baker/Krugman prescription for Greece, like that shining star, Argentina, no?)
...
written by S.D. Jeffries, February 07, 2013 10:55
If Samuelson is so concerned about future financial crises, maybe he should get on board with extensive regulation of the FIRE industries in an effort to prevent such crises before they happen. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that Samuelson or any of his like-minded "experts" has been championing tighter regulation or more transparency of these markets.
Various
written by Calgacus, February 07, 2013 2:20
These projections were about as wrong as they could possibly be. We would have done every bit as well finding a drunk person on the street and asking him for his economic forecasts for the next five years.
This really, really is an understatement. Mainstream econ is magically wrong about everything, gets everything backwards. It is worse than random. Honestly, I would bet on the drunk guy on the street to do better.

Pete: Taking steel and plastic and building drones and tanks and such removes these from use as consumption goods. Buying health care for folks at inflated health professional prices crowds out spending on more fun things.
Only really true at full employment, as usual, this is the assumption you don't realize you are always making. Those getting the dough for the inflated health prices and the drones and tanks spend it too. If Uncle Sam is paying, it is pretty much a free lunch until full employment.

Clearly foreign debt is different, but if that gets too big we can default, as is the Baker/Krugman prescription for Greece, like that shining star, Argentina, no?
If your creditors actively prevent you from repaying your debt, as is the case in Greece vs Germany & the ECB, moral criticisms of default lose their weight. In any case, the USA cannot be forced into default. Why anyone could think Argentina, like the rest of Latin America rebelling against neoliberal poison, isn't doing well enough, is beyond me. Wish today's USA had economic management as good as today's Argentina's. Our current economic management is much more reminiscent of that which made one of the very richest countries in the world 60-100 years ago into an economic banana republic.

...
written by kharris, February 07, 2013 2:37
"If we have more debt in circulation, this means that people have more government bonds as a store of wealth. In other words, because we had deficit spending to support the economy today, people will have more wealth in the future."

You do understand the conceptual difference between a "store of wealth" and "wealth", yes? Your argument, as stated, is no more than an attempt to substitute one concept for another, without justifying the substitution. Unless the creation of debt allows for the creation of more good stuff, there is no sense in which creating a "store of wealth" is the same as creating "wealth". You can make the argument that an increase in government debt allows for the creation of more good stuff, but you haven't. The crowding-out argument IS the assertion that government borrowing reduces future wealth. Your response to the crowding out argument is to ignore the crowding out argument, with slippery use of language sprinkled on top.
...
written by watermelonpunch, February 07, 2013 9:29
Whoa, I barely understood the blog post, and the comments... Guys, try to at least use line breaks & coalesce thoughts as they pour out. Remember, there are some of us actually reading what you write. ha ha

This, I did understand:
These projections were about as wrong as they could possibly be. We would have done every bit as well finding a drunk person on the street and asking him for his economic forecasts for the next five years.


But I think it's worse than that too..

Honestly, I would bet on the drunk guy on the street to do better.


I was about to make a similar comment.
I'm too risk-averse to have bet on just the one drunk guy chosen by someone else...
I would need either a few & average the predictions (probably 75% more accurate than the experts)... Or at least for me to be able to pick based on appearance.

For example, I would want to pick the drunk guy in the 3 overcoats, not the guy in the 3 piece suit. ha ha ha

Write comment

(Only one link allowed per comment)

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

busy
 

CEPR.net
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.

Archives