This same ambiguous outlook applies to the U.S. economy as a whole. On the one hand, data released by the Department of Commerce last week reveals that real gross domestic product (GDP)—the value of all goods and services produced by the US economy, adjusted for inflation—increased at a 2.4% pace in the second quarter, following 2% growth in the first quarter. If this pace continues—a big if—then the economy will have safely avoided recession territory, having rebounded modestly from the two quarters of negative GDP growth at the beginning of 2022.

But past is not prologue. The economy still faces multiple headwinds that leave the risk of recession—or at least a significant weakening of growth—very much on the table. For one thing, the effects of monetary policy (i.e., rate hikes) on the economy operate with a time lag. The primary mechanism through which rate hikes fight inflation is by making borrowing costlier, thereby discouraging the demand for spending and, with it, the pressure on prices. The medicine from earlier doses of rate hikes is already having an effect on the economy; headline CPI inflation fell to 3% year-over-year last month, down from a peak of over 9%. However, rate hikes from late spring have not yet fully reverberated throughout the U.S. economy. Even so, the recent GDP data indicate that consumer spending only grew by 1.6% in the second quarter, with durable goods spending only growing by 0.4%. This particular subset of spending is useful as a gauge because durable goods like washing machines and other expensive household items are often purchased using credit, which now commands higher interest rates because of the Fed’s actions.

Another headwind facing the economy is the impending resumption of student loan repayments this fall. Make no mistake: student loan repayments ought to resume. Bailing out student debt by transferring it from the people who are reaping the financial gains from their education to taxpayers is regressive, fiscally irresponsible, and inflationary. However, this reality does not take away from the fact that people will feel the sting of being required to pay debts that they have been shielded from during the past few years. Consequently, consumer spending growth is likely to slow further or even turn negative. Considering that consumer spending contributed 1%age point (out of the 2.4) to GDP growth in the second quarter, a hypothetical scenario where consumer spending growth flatlines would by itself reduce GDP growth to just 1.4%. Moreover, another important component of GDP—investment—is sensitive both to rates themselves as well as business expectations about future consumer demand. It is entirely plausible—maybe even likely—that investment growth will decline from its most recent rate of 5.7%, and if that happens, GDP growth could easily fall below 1%.

Still another important headwind is the fact that, for all the progress the Fed—and the Fed alone—has made in combatting inflation, it has not yet succeeded in achieving its 2% target. As shown in the figure below, headline inflation is down to 3%, but core inflation—a better measure of fundamental pricing pressures—is still nearly 5%. Moreover, because the inflation readings are year-over-year measures, and because the monthly numbers from July and August 2022 were very low, it is quite possible that the headline year-over-year inflation numbers may rise modestly over the next few months.

Lastly, and arguably most importantly, the U.S. economy has been facing a productivity crisis over the past two years. Productivity—that is, economic output per hour of labor—has decreased by nearly 2.5% since the second quarter of 2021, which is unprecedented. By comparison, productivity rose by nearly 5% from the first quarter of 2017 to the fourth quarter of 2019. Not coincidentally, that earlier period corresponded with household income rising by over $5,000 after inflation—meaning higher purchasing power—as compared with the recent decline in purchasing power of over $2,000. The figure below gives a stark visual reminder that prices have grown consistently faster than wages since the passage of the American Rescue Plan Act “stimulus” bill in early 2021, with price growth decreasing only in response to the Federal Reserve’s interest-rate-hiking campaign.

As speculation continues over the near-term trajectory of the U.S. economy, it is worth mentioning again the essential need to raise productivity—not just to avoid recession, but to lift the economy out of the doldrums of 1% to 2% growth and return to or exceed its historical norm of 3% growth. While these numbers may seem difficult to relate to, a rule-of-thumb may prove useful. The amount of time (in years) that it takes for the U.S. economy to double in size is roughly 70 divided by the growth rate. Thus, if an economy grows at 3% per year, it will take approximately 70/3 = 23.3 years to double in size. By contrast, if the economy grows at 2% per year, it will take 70/2 = 35 years to double, and it will take 70/1 = 70 years to double if growth is persistently only 1%. That would be a disaster for the U.S.’s potential to remain the leading economy in the world.

So how do we achieve growth liftoff? Answering this question is much too large for a single blog post, but the key is productivity, and one important point to remember is that raising productivity is not about squeezing more out of workers and making life at work more of an unpleasant grind. Quite to the contrary. The most effective way to increase productivity is to ensure that workers are equipped with the skills to succeed, unencumbered by regulations to find the best occupation and employer to realize their potential, and where both workers and employers are able to keep more of the fruits of their productive activity. That phrase—productive activity—is key to keep in mind. While public debate often focuses on spending, spending, spending, it’s time to shift our attention to producing.

The post Recession: To Be or Not To Be, That Is the Question appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A year later, in January 2023, a lot has changed, but some things remain the same—especially the amount of economic uncertainty on the horizon. The economy began the year with rock-bottom interest rates, but after the Federal Reserve finally came to terms with the persistence of inflation, it wisely abandoned its lax stance and proceeded to tighten the screws by raising interest rates at an extremely rapid pace—taking its benchmark Fed Funds rate from 0 percent at the beginning of the year to over 4 percent by the end. During this same period, mortgage rates jumped from historically low levels of under 3 percent to over 7 percent. As a result, existing home sales fell by 35 percent over the year, and residential investment plummeted. Meanwhile, gross domestic product shrank during the first two quarters of the year but managed to register a respectable number in the third quarter (fourth quarter data is not available yet).

The primary questions on everybody’s minds entering 2023 are these: Can the economy achieve a soft landing? And can inflation come down without the U.S. economy entering recession? Unfortunately, it is still far too early to tell. Today’s jobs report revealed that the labor market continues to hold up, with payrolls growing by 223,000 in December 2022 and the unemployment rate falling to 3.5 percent. While these data are good news, they don’t tell us much about the future, because the labor market tends to lag the rest of the economy. In other words, if the U.S. economy hits turbulence in 2023 and enters recession territory, the labor market response will likely be delayed, as has been the case historically. In the meantime, the main takeaway from the most recent jobs report is that the prospects for the Federal Reserve reversing its rate hikes are basically nil—at least until inflation drops back down to 2 percent and remains there for a while. The recent release of the Federal Reserve’s minutes from its most recent policy meetings confirms that there is no sentiment at the Fed to begin rate cuts anytime soon.

It is still possible to gather some other tea leaves from some of the recent economic data, however, to get a sense for where the economy may be headed. The downside of the latest jobs data is that there is little to no evidence that workers are being enticed from the sidelines. As shown in the chart here, the labor force participation rate—which counts people who are working and those actively looking for work—remains below 2019 levels by a full percentage point. Some of the drop is due to early retirements during COVID-19, but if one looks at the data just for prime-age workers (those between the age of 25 and 54—see the chart here), their labor force participation rate hasn’t fully recovered either. With 1.75 job openings per unemployed worker, the labor shortage has no imminent end in sight, which also complicates the inflation picture by making it more difficult for businesses to accommodate demand without raising prices.

Thankfully, the end of 2022 offered some promising signs for inflation. Most directly, the inflation data itself showed some moderation, although it continues to run hot at over 7 percent year-over-year. Also, the most recent jobs report showed that wage pressures also may be subsiding to some extent. Of course, faster wage growth in principle is a good thing for workers, but only when driven by sustainable forces. Over the past nearly two years, wage growth has run hotter than in prior years, but the increase took place amidst a backdrop of declining productivity. The result has been even faster price growth, resulting in a steep drop in purchasing power, leaving families poorer in terms of their living standards. Going forward, 2023 offers a lot of uncertainty, and data over the next few months regarding inflation and productivity will be quite revealing. One thing working in the economy’s favor is a divided Congress, which should mean a stop to the glut of inflationary government spending. The question is whether it will be too little, too late to avoid a hard landing.

The post Year-End Jobs Report: Goldilocks, or Calm Before the Storm? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As I wrote nearly a year ago, Missouri is not prepared for the next recession, and the inadequacy of the state’s rainy-day fund is a big reason why. That’s also why my colleagues and I included rainy-day fund reform as a top priority in our 2022 blueprint. Missouri’s rainy-day fund has serious problems; it’s too small, too hard to access, and it’s too hard to restore funds once they’re used.

Missouri’s rainy-day fund has two big problems: it ranks in the bottom half of states in available savings, and complicated rules make it difficult to use. As a result, it’s never once been called upon for budget stabilization purposes. When a recession hits, and state tax revenues decline, it’s helpful for governments to have some funds set aside to help plug the immediate shortfall to avoid unnecessary interruption in services until revenues rebound. Today, Missouri’s fund has around $385 million, which would only cover approximately one third of the revenue shortfall our state experienced during the Great Recession of 2008. And without a robust rainy-day fund, states are left to rely on relief from the federal government to keep them afloat.

State lawmakers had a unique opportunity this year to fix what’s been broken since Missouri’s current rainy-day fund was created in 1999. State tax revenues were up and there were more federal relief funds available than could reasonably be put to good use. This meant that for the first time in a long while, there was ample money available to invest in Missouri’s financial future. There were even efforts by the governor and the Missouri House to create a new fund, but they ultimately fell apart toward the end of this year’s legislative session.

Rising inflation and the COVID-19 pandemic illustrate the importance of governments preparing for rainy days, but also the risks associated with overreliance on federal funding to keep our collective heads above water. As the price of gas and other goods continue to soar, economic forecasters are now warning of a potential downturn in the near future. It is unfortunate Missouri’s lawmakers didn’t seize this year’s opportunity to get a better umbrella, because the chances are we’re going to need one sooner rather than later.

The post Missouri Forgot Its Umbrella appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On May 10, 2022, Aaron Hedlund, chief economist at the Show-Me Institute, and Tyler Goodspeed, Kleinheinz Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, discussed the impact of decades-high inflation on the economy, workers, and consumers, as well as the role of the Federal Reserve in solving the problem and the risk of the next recession.

Listen to the podcast:

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Sticher 

Listen on SoundCloud

The post Inflation in America: The Role of the Fed and the Risk of Recession appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Read Their Full Report Here

Listen on Apple Podcasts

Listen on Sticher 

Listen on SoundCloud

The post Podcast: Missouri is Not Ready for the Next Recession – Corianna Baier & Elias Tsapelas appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Making Missouri Resilient: Assessing State and Local Government Recession Preparedness appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This presentation covers three main points: what caused the Great Depression; what caused it to go on for so long; and how did we finally get out of it.

Many believe that the cause was the stock market crash of 1929, which caused the Great Depression and a laissez-faire approach toward the crisis, ultimately making things worse. However, that is incorrect. In fact, while the crash started the crisis, it was a series of well-intentioned but poorly thought-out government actions that turned a sharp recession into a depression.

This presentation details how, in fact, President Roosevelt built upon the policies of President Hoover to combat the Depression. However, these policies did not get the country out of the Depression. In reality, it took a combination of events, including World War II, to actually end the Depression and restore strong economic growth. After watching this presentation, you will have a better understanding of that era in American history and the effects of public policy on the economy.

Download the slide show

The post Why Was The Depression So Great? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Why Was the Great Depression So Great? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

}

Watch the full video here.

The post Lower Taxes to Improve the Economy –Calvin Coolidge appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The state is awarding businesses, organizations, and individuals hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credits each year. It’s not as though the Missouri government is handing out these credits evenly across the tax base, either. As I have pointed out before, these credits are awarded to specific entities. Why is the state allocating credits to select groups and businesses?

The endearing purpose of one tax credit program is to “encourage farmers to acquire breeding livestock.” Sounds great for the cattle, but what about businesses that don’t sell livestock? Why is the state encouraging growth in the livestock industry? What about the myriad industries in the state that do not receive tax credits?

Tax credit redemptions have been on the rise. To rein in the credits, a commission was established last year to review all 61 tax credit programs. They recommended eliminating or not reauthorizing dozens of the programs, and placing caps on others. In all, if their recommendations were enacted, they reasoned, “the State could realize short and long term savings totaling as much as $220 million in tax credit authorizations (based on average authorizations FY07-FY09), eliminate the exponential growth of tax credit authorizations, improve budget forecasting, while at the same time better-positioning the State to compete in the economy of today as well as the economy of the future.”

Since the recession began, tax credit authorizations have fallen. This happened in the last recession, and will probably happen in the next. And, like the last recovery, tax credits will probably increase as the economy improves. We need a better long-term solution.

My solution is simple and doesn’t take 54 pages to detail: Eliminate tax credits and cut state taxes by 6 percent. It will certainly improve budget forecasting and end the growth of tax credit authorizations, as well as better position our state to compete in any economy. Lower taxes tend to do that.

The post “Make That Two” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Here’s how it works. Assume that you are a developer. You plan to build a low-income housing project with a total cost of $11 million. Of that, assume $10 million is eligible for the credits (land costs are excluded). The credits are limited to 90 percent of that figure, so assume that you get $9 million in credits.

The credits then are sold to investors. Assume that the investors, after discounting the net present value of the credits over 10 years, buy them for 60 percent of their face value — or about $5.4 million. Assume also that you get a regular mortgage loan equal to 70 percent of the $11 million total cost of the project — about $7.7 million. These are conservative estimates.

So the developer now has funding of approximately $13 million ($5.4 million plus $7.7 million) for a project that costs $11 million. The developer will receive a $2 million check at the closing, less any escrows.

Later in the editorial, the author demonstrates how these programs can be further manipulated to benefit the developer above all others. Then, he concludes:

At a time when government at every level is becoming insolvent, all of these programs should be subjected to a top-to-bottom review.

If tax credits programs in Missouri were continuously scrutinized, Missourians would be better off. This is particularly important because the Missouri state government doles out a tremendous amount of money through this program, which is a tab that taxpayers have to pick up. Using the “Show-Me: Tax Credits” application at Show-Me Living, I isolated the trend of tax credits issued under the Low-Income Housing program. Since 2000, there have been 437 credits issued in Missouri for a total amount of $1,360,900,251. The average amount awarded to a single recipient is $3,114,188. The smallest amount awarded to a single recipient is $14,230, and the largest awarded is $13,320,000.

The only positive thing that I can say about the following graph is that it illustrates a downward trend after 2006. However, I wonder if the decrease in the amount of credits issued and redeemed is simply indicative of a general decrease in construction projects because of the recession. It may be that fewer people build or renovate during periods of recession, regardless of state tax incentives.

Trend of Total Low-Income Housing Tax Credits Issued in Missouri

The post Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Mathematics appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Given the current state of the economy and the deficit, is this the time to pull back on stimulus spending and pay more attention to the deficit, or should Washington worry more about the short term and let the long term take care of itself?

The Paul Krugman camp, consisting of those economists wanting to stimulate the
recovery through expansive government spending, are — like the spending they are advocating — lost in their own arguments.
In the article, Steve Fazzari, a professor of economics at Washington University in St. Louis, states, “One person’s spending is someone else’s income.” I absolutely agree. But then, in a quick turn of events, he goes on to say, “When the government cuts spending, it’s cutting income to someone.” This is also true, strictly speaking, but the implications of his first statement are more important.

I used to mow lawns, and if my employer had told me that he would give my payment to my brother after I finished my work so that my brother could do some weeding, I would have immediately walked away and taken my labor elsewhere.

If that same employer had given me $10 the week before I was supposed to mow the lawn, two things might have resulted: (1) With cash already in hand, my attention to detail would have suffered considerably; and, (2) I would not have been in any hurry to finish the job.

Historically speaking, capital evolved before credit, and for most of the real world, that is how personal finance is understood — you largely only spend what you have. The problem that got us into this recession was egregious spending beyond our means. If mortgage lenders hadn’t been so eager to hand out money — apart from the fact that home loans were implicitly backed by the federal government’s approval — this last recession most likely could have been avoided.

Without the possibility of high default rates at the micro level, the financial instruments that impregnated the system with risk may never have been implemented on such a large scale. Now, after the crisis, we see the world’s top economists trying to formulate a plan to fix the system. In practice so far, that has involved injecting liquidity into the economy through massive government spending. The Krugman camp claims this is more responsible than private investment, because the Fed can print more money to increase the flow of capital rather than bearing the risks of default. There’s no need to worry about the deficit now, they say; we can take care of that later.

Yet few are buying the empty promises of the government. And why should they? With an aging population and massive health care overhauls on the way, everyone can see that entitlement spending is about to skyrocket. Higher taxes are almost certain. Increasingly larger numbers of the American people are holding onto their money in an effort to maintain liquidity in anticipation of the expiring tax cuts at the end of the year. Stimulus money is falling into the same trap; it’s not multiplying the way Keynesians had hoped because investors are wary of the uncertain economic conditions that may be brought about by still more government spending and higher taxes.

We cannot extricate ourselves from the hole we are in until we stop digging. Americans need to see the sunlight before they are willing to buy an expensive ladder to climb out.

The post Capital Before Credit appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The gargantuan campaign won’t end when the census forms are released. According to the Census Project’s website, some meteorologists will be reporting local census response rates along with high temperatures and the chance of rain.

Why the sudden onslaught of publicity for something that the country has always done every 10 years? The bureau is touting its campaign as “unprecedented,” as though this year’s census were different from previous counts and required a radically new approach. I noticed that sentiment in today’s advertising kickoff, particularly when MTV Networks’ executive vice president of public affairs stated that people should participate in the 2010 Census because it will be “the most important count of their lifetimes.” This characterization is puzzling given that we’re going to conduct another census a decade from now.

One thing that I’ll admit sets this census apart is its timing: As the economy slowly pulls out of a deep recession, any large enterprise that generates employment is welcome. Still, it would be unwise to expect the census to have a big effect on the economy, even through its biggest campaign ever. I agree with MyTwoCensus.com’s prediction that the Census Bureau’s hiring won’t spur economic growth because the jobs last only six weeks. Fortunately, no one is lobbying for continuous recounts to make those jobs permanent, the way fans of tax breaks for filmmakers would like Missouri to grant tax credit after tax credit, year round.

The post All Census, All the Time appeared first on Show-Me Institute.