Questions & Answers about the Currect Economic Recession

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ABOUT THE CURRENT ECONOMIC RECESSION

What is a recession and how does it differ from a depression?
A recession is a sustained decrease in economic activity that is typically accompanied by decreases in employment, national income, and the production of goods and services. An unofficial way to estimate the existence a recession is to look for at least two consecutive quarters of declines in gross domestic product (GDP). The official calculations are more complex and are conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).
A depression is a severe and prolonged recession.

What causes recessions and depressions?
Recessions and depressions are caused by insufficient overall spending on newly produced goods and services. When there is insufficient aggregate demand (AD) for new products, stores sell fewer things, causing factories to produce less output and increasing unemployment. As workers lose their jobs, their incomes are reduced, leading to further decreases in overall spending and deepening the economic downturn.
The recession that began in December 2007 was caused by collapsing housing prices, the subprime mortgage crisis, and subsequent tightening of credit markets. In 2004 and 2005, the United States experienced unusually rapid increases in housing prices, sometimes referred to as a real estate bubble. Low interest rates and insufficiently regulated lending practices fueled these unsustainable price increases. Many people increased general purchases by borrowing against their homes (with unrealistically high values). Housing prices peaked in 2006 and the subsequent declines, sometimes called the bursting of the bubble, triggered home foreclosures, the subprime mortgage crisis and reductions in loans. Thus, real estate declines led to a decrease in the aggregate demand (AD) for newly produced goods and services.

Should the government do anything to prevent further economic declines?
Economic declines will eventually end without government intervention, but it may take an unacceptably long period of time. The British economist John Maynard Keynes popularized the idea that the government should play an active role in managing the economy. Keynes admitted that an unassisted economy may correct itself in the long run, but “in the long run we are all dead.” We may not live long enough to see the improvement in the economy.
Recessions are caused by insufficient overall spending on newly produced goods and services. Increases in unemployment reduce national income, which in turn reduces aggregate demand further. This deepens the economic decline and may lead to a depression. The length and severity of the Great Depression led most economists and public policy analysts to conclude that it is appropriate for the government to intervene in the economy to try to reduce the severity of recessions and prevent depressions.

What types of government policies reduce the severity of recessions and reverse economic declines?
The government has two broad options for managing the overall economy: monetary policy and fiscal policy.
In the United States, expansionary monetary policy is the Federal Reserve system´s use of the money supply, interest rates, and the banking system to encourage commercial banks to lend more money to the public in the hope that this will increase overall spending on newly produced U.S. goods and services. The collapse of credit markets in 2008 reduced most types of lending and will require a restoration of confidence (perhaps by improved oversight and regulation) before monetary policy can assist in economy recovery (by lending more money to encourage more overall spending).
Fiscal policy is taxation and government spending. The logic of using tax cuts to counter a recession is that if the government takes less money from individuals and businesses, they will have more money to spend. Remember the cause of the U.S. economic downturn is insufficient overall spending on newly produced American goods and services. In this regard, tax cuts are essentially identical to the federal government handing out money. The goal is to put more money in the hands of individuals and businesses in the hope that they will spend it on products that are newly made by U.S. workers. Many debates about tax cuts are essentially decisions about to whom the government should be giving money. Tax cuts and other increases in government handouts are relatively quick ways to inject purchasing power into the economy and increase the potential for increases in aggregate demand. There is no way to guarantee that these income supplements will result in purchases of newly made U.S. products, however. For example, much of the increased disposable income caused by the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 resulted in paying down consumer debt rather than increased consumer spending. And even when spent, if the products purchased are not American-made there is limited benefit to the U.S. economy and its workers. Even though tax cuts or other government handouts can be done quickly, they may be poor choices if they do not significantly increase overall spending on newly produced U.S. goods and services.
An alternative fiscal policy to counteract economic declines is an increase in government purchases. The primary benefit of this choice is that government procurement policies can ensure that this increased spending goes to U.S. businesses that employ American workers. A difficulty with this approach, however, is that it may be difficult to spend sufficient quantities of money quickly enough on projects of long-term benefit. Infrastructure projects can take long periods of time to complete and thus may not inject additional income into the economy quickly enough. Similar arguments can be made for proposals to improve energy efficiency, develop alternative fuel sources, or reform the health care industry. Projects that can be quickly implemented, however, may be of questionable long-term benefit. Yet, if the result is increased purchases of new products made by U.S. workers and suppliers, they still may be preferable to tax cuts (if the tax cuts are used to pay down debt or buy used or foreign products).
Tax cuts and increases in government spending both increase budget deficits and the national debt. Criticisms of stimulus proposals on the basis of reluctance to increase public borrowing apply equally to tax reductions and increased spending programs. Running deficits is not always bad, however. For example, many students borrow substantial sums of money in order to attend college. This indebtedness is easily justified, however, because it leads to a college degree that increases earnings potential for the remainder of one´s career. Similarly, it can be reasonable for a society to borrow money from future generations if the funds are spent wisely on things that increase the productive ability of the economy and improve future living standards. Future generations may not mind if money is borrowed from them to develop alternative energy sources that result in less environmental degradation. It is less arguable to accumulate massive public debt based on willful ignorance, selfishness, or simple reluctance to pay one´s way. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were the first wartime tax decreases in U.S. history. Previous generations were willing to make sacrifices for causes they believed in.
Tax decreases are popular and are undoubtedly of short-term benefit to those allowed to pay less in tax. The dramatic increases in U.S. budget deficits and public debt since 1980 have been of great short-term benefit to many sectors of the economy. But they have done substantial harm to the long-term benefit of the U.S. and global economies (for many of the reasons cited by critics of current stimulus proposals). It is akin to allowing large numbers of people to go to the mall, stuff shopping bags with items, and walk out without paying. It is of great short-term benefit to those who get away with it. But these strategies are not sustainable in the long-term. Selfish and misguided choices over the previous three decades have left American policymakers with few, if any, desirable options. The more important question may be how long will it take before U.S. citizens become willing to make the sacrifices and tough choices necessary to correct the abuses of the past and demand more honest, reasoned leadership.

What about the supply-side argument that tax cuts induce businesses to increase investment and create jobs?
A business does not need a tax cut to create a job. A rational business manager will hire a worker if that person generates more additional income than what he or she is paid in wages, salary, and benefits. Similarly, business investment will occur if the perceived future revenues exceed the expected costs.
Subsides can be used to increase private investment in factories or equipment. But they may be of no more benefit than similar expenditures by government entities. Any increases in physical capital can be of future benefit to the economy, whether in the form of government subsidies to private businesses or direct government purchases for public investment.
Factory workers do not lose their jobs because of the lack of a factory, as supply-side theorists might suggest. It is insufficient demand for their products that causes the job losses.