Progressives and the Budget Deficit

by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Progressives and the Budget Deficit
The economic debate has been dominated by "experts" who could not anticipate an $8 trillion housing bubble. (Illustration: Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com / flickr)

    The budget situation today looks hugely worse than it did two years ago. The reason for the deterioration is not that the country has suddenly embarked on a massive new round of social spending, undertaken another major military adventure or even emptied the coffers through tax breaks. The reason that the deficit situation looks hugely worse than it did two years ago is that the $8 trillion housing bubble that had been driving the economy finally collapsed and threw the country into the worst downturn since the Great Depression.

    The tragedy in this story is that the collapse of the bubble and its devastating consequences were entirely predictable. Had policymakers recognized the housing bubble and its dangers, they could have easily taken measures to avert this disaster, preventing the surge in unemployment, the flood of foreclosures and the huge budget deficits that characterize this downturn.

    Unfortunately, the sociology of the economics profession and economic policymaking is structured so that the voices of those who raised concerns about the housing bubble were largely excluded from public debate. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan and other leading lights of the economics profession insisted that everything was fine. As a result, nearly all the properly credentialed "experts" marched in lockstep behind their leaders, also insisting that everything was fine.

    Remarkably, even after this collapse, nothing has changed in the structure of debates over economic policy. Nearly every day of the week an organization in Washington sponsors a policy session on the budget deficit or other some other important economic topic and every last "expert" is among that distinguished group that somehow could not see an $8 trillion housing bubble.

    This would be like hosting a session on the future of US military involvement in Iraq in which every participant had confidently predicted in 2003 that the United States would cakewalk to an easy victory. Even the Republicans wouldn't be foolish enough to host a panel like this. Yet, there seems to be a bipartisan consensus that completely missing the biggest economic calamity in almost 80 years doesn't call into question your competence as an economic analyst.

    This should scare people. There is no reason to believe that people who were incapable if independent analysis before the bubble collapsed are now capable of thinking for themselves. In other words, the vast majority of the so-called experts who pontificate on economic policy are still people who are more accustomed to deferring to authority than doing their own analysis. This means that a great deal of silliness is likely to be perpetuated, just as was the case before the housing bubble collapsed.

    The basic story on the budget deficit is very simple: We need badly need large budget deficits in the short term. They are the only force that can sustain demand in the economy after the collapse of housing construction and the loss of the consumption that had been supported by $8 trillion in illusory housing bubble wealth.

    In the longer term, we will need to reduce our trade deficit to replace this demand, but this can only be brought about by a reduction in the value of the dollar against the currencies of our trading partners. If our budget experts had been capable of independent thinking before the crash, they would have pointed out the over-valued dollar as a main cause of imbalances in the US economy. Unfortunately, most of them are still incapable of recognizing the obvious.

    The other big oversight that the budget experts commit is the failure to recognize the positive role that moderate rates of inflation can play in our economic recovery. Sustained inflation in the range of 3 to 4 percent will be the quickest way to rebuild the balance sheets of households who saw most or all of their wealth disappear with the bursting of the bubble.

    Modest inflation will also help to erode the debt burden the government was forced to take on due to the housing crash. For those old enough to remember, inflation was also a major factor in reducing the burden of the huge debt that the country incurred as a result of World War II.

    Of course in the long term, if we don't fix health care then the deficits will be unbearable, but this calls for discussions of health care, not budget deficits. If we don't fix health care, the economy will be wrecked regardless of what we do with the budget.

    But, we won't get a more serious discussion of these issues until we have budget experts who actually form independent assessments of the economy. As it stands, the debate is dominated by a follow-the-leader crew who could not see an $8 trillion housing bubble.

Creative Commons License
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.





     

»



Dean Baker is a macroeconomist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. He previously worked as a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute and an assistant professor at Bucknell University. He is a regular Truthout columnist and a member of Truthout's Board of Advisers.


Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



The silenced can not buy the

The silenced can not buy the ears of the bought who speak loudly to the fearful.


Baker is usually pretty

Baker is usually pretty good, but he misses it on this one, because like most economists he misses the point that trying to grow the economy will only make ecological collapse worse. We need to evaporate the wealth and have a smaller economy.


We don't need deficits, we

We don't need deficits, we need a new socioeconomic model. Dean Baker's constant drumbeat for debt spending is part of the uber-capitalist agenda, which lands him in the camp of right wingers and all consumerist thinkers who believe that consuming earth resources, paving over the earth, and spending money we don't have is the way to salvation. It is not the way. The most progressive thinkers worldwide have realized that Marx was right. Capitalism is based on endless consumption of finite resources, with marketing propaganda convincing everyone that they need more cars, leaf blowers, jet skis, kids, toys, etc. And if the earth and their incomes can't support their more, more more desires- then just print and borrow the money from the world banker elites (including the Fed), who make a profit every time currency is printed and lent to governments. Dean, please, realize that the spend spend spend model is OVER. It's time to create a new socioeconomic model that's based on LESS consumption, living within your means, ending all wars, and respect for the finiteness of the earth. Thanks!


Its more a question of

Its more a question of priorities. We could un-spend over $.5 trillion per year on defense and be a safer country. We could un-spend billions more in waste projects. That would put us much closer to even. Then if we fixed the catastrophe mislabeled health industry, we could find enough money to insure everyone, and fix our infrastructure, including schools that produce people who create wealth rather than manipulate financial markets. Lastly invest in energy independence and get moving on the biggest threat to the US - global warming. To summarize, un-spend on all the Reagan/Bush/Bush priorities and start spending on national priorities. there is more than enough money, we just spend it where it returns the least for us.


David has a good point about

David has a good point about curbing mindless consumption. But be careful. We cannot simply decide to stop going to the store. Capitalism does engender waste. But it also drives competition and innovation. It fuels new thinking. Some is of the silly putty and SUV variety. But much of it is about curing AIDs, sharing information and hopefully, even looking to other planets to expand. There have to be rewards for our dreams or we will sit on our hands and die. It's a question - like in most things - of balance.


The motto on my wall says,

The motto on my wall says, "Eat it up, wear it out, make it do or do without" and I try to live up, or down, to its advice in order to stay within my income from Social Security (which my progressive parents fought for back in the '30's depression days). One of the atomic scientists once wss quoted suggesting that electric bills be increased as a solution for more energy to be developed. As a consumer (who tried to use it carefully), I wrote him a complaint letter to which he demurred in response. But why should the public be punished for the sins of the reckless big boys and their compliant Washington toadies who allowed them to greed on until the system collapsed? Bailed out families spend enough to restore business; bailed out bankers and car makers not only don't, but take our tax money (so we cannot spend) and reward those who got them, and our economy, into this. And it ain't no AIDS cure.


Wars ate up our resources.

Wars ate up our resources. During Vietnam, 78 cents of every federal tax dollar went to the machinery of killing (including preps for other wars). The Iraq war had already cost 3 trillion dollars when Joseph Stiglitz added it up. The wars caused us to be hated around the world. Our descendants will suffer for it.


There is no such thing as

There is no such thing as "progressive" or "conservative" when it comes to budget deficits. I always do not understand why the need to segregate us into political tribes ( we are Americans not clansmen). Not to mention that such use of the word has been so overused and abused that the original use of the word has been literally changed into something unaccounted for or associated. This is why I detest the categorizing of individuals to be herded into one group destroying individuality of that person and his credibility to think for himself as well. For Dean Baker to say that we seriously need to earmark large spending increases for the short term is suicidal. The more we spend the more we borrow from other nations to cover our outrages spending habits cause of the shortfall in taxes in the light of ever higher unemployment, small business closings(either bankruptcy, hostile takeover from a large corporation, higher taxes, rising commodity prices, etc.) I do agree that the misappropriation of resources such as useless wars, needless bases around the world, and other useless government programs that are suppose to be there for one time has been totally dependent on that source ( whether it may be corporations of industrial, finance, or from organizations such as ACORN, religious charity groups, think tanks, etc). Inflation as to what Dean Baker advocates I do not want any of that. Inflation is why we have misappropriation of resources to begin with. It will lead to another boom and bust economy which will further create more debt money rather than credit. In fact, inflation is the main cause of the birthing of bubbles, since your 'true' savings, will be inflated, your 'true' wages will be inflated, your 'equity' will be inflated, and so forth will always lead to an inevitable bust. What we truly need is a stable economy, one that is backed by precious metals, as to check the inflation and to slow down the overgrowth of the economy. But until then we have no other choice but to PAY DOWN personal, business, and government DEBT before we can enact a precious metal based economy.


Not really a housing bubble

Not really a housing bubble so much as a fraudulent mortgage scam perpetuated by the same banks that lined up for taxpayer bailout money. No different than the savings and loan fraud under Reagan, just bigger and bolder and more expensive to fix. And still no serious talk about closing the barn door much less filing criminal charges against the people involved in conspiracy and fraud lest the flow of campaign contributions be reduced. So long as corporations can legally bribe government officials we will continue to have these problems. And when the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee can accept $4 million dollars from the health care companies and it is legal and for some reason he declines to promote legislation that might damage this industries rapacious profits, that is not considered even unethical much less illegal. And when his staff comes from the same private industries he is supposed to be crafting legislation to regulate and they discuss how to best benefit that industry, that is not considered a criminal conspiracy just business as usual in Congress.