The Bush Boom Was a Complete Bust

Posted April 6, 2008 | 10:15 AM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

Either we're in a recession or we're about to start one. Either way, the latest expansion is over. While there may be some question about when it happened (the expansion, that is) the reality is it was the least impressive expansion since WWII. Below I will explain why.

Before I move forward, let me address specifically any readers who still think the last expansion was "the Greatest Story Never Told." I am going to use facts to demonstrate why the latest expansion was terrible. If you don't like the facts please feel free to present you own facts. In fact, please do so. But please only use facts from reliable sources. Reliable sources would be the government agencies that collect and present this data. To sit at this table, you must bring data (properly adjusted for inflation) that is from sources used by all economists not from sources whose credibility is non-existent.

That being said (and I can't believe I even have to address this issue).

Let's start with the consumer side of the equation. First , job growth during this expansion is the weakest of any recovery since WWII. (This information comes from the National Bureau of Economic Research and the Bureau of Labor Statistics)

As a result, real median household income (income adjusted for inflation) is now lower than it was at the beginning of this expansion (this is the first time this has happened in 40 years) (This information comes from the Census Bureau).

So -- where did the money for consumer spending come from? Part of it came from savings. Here is a chart from the St. Louis Federal Reserve of U.S. national savings. Notice this number has been decreasing for the last 25 years and is currently hovering around 0%.

Debt is the real source of funds for this expansion (this information comes from the Federal Reserve's Flow of Funds report and the Bureau of Economic Analysis).

As a result of this increased debt load, a larger portion of consumer's income (which has been stagnant for this expansion) is going to debt payments:

So looking at the consumer we see the following picture emerge.

1.) Job growth was the weakest of any post WWII recovery.

2.) Real median income actually dropped for the duration of this expansion.

3.) To sustain consumption, consumers went on a mammoth debt acquisition binge, so that now

4.) Debt payments are as high as they have ever been on a percentage of disposable income basis.

So after 7 years of economic expansion we have lower incomes and more debt.

However, the consumer isn't the only person who ran up a ton of debt.

The Bush White House has again run up the national credit card. Here is a list of total debt outstanding at the end of the government's fiscal year:

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86

The current debt outstanding is $9,437,425,175,221.31

Notice that since 2002 the Federal Government has issue over $500 billion of net new debt per year. And yet, we have continually been told the budget deficit is getting better. Let's ask a fundamental question: if you continually spent less than you made, would you have to borrow money?

As the US has become more reliant on debt financing it has also become more reliant on foreign governments for its financing. Here is a chart from the St. Louis Federal Reserve of the total U.S. debt held for foreign investors:

In short, growth at the national level is dependent on the issuance of debt. And we are now reliant on foreigners for an increasing percentage of our growth. A former Federal Reserve Chairman (Paul Volcker) explains why this is a bad development:

More recently, we've become more dependent on foreign central banks, particularly in China and Japan and elsewhere in East Asia.


It's all quite comfortable for us. We fill our shops and our garages with goods from abroad, and the competition has been a powerful restraint on our internal prices. It's surely helped keep interest rates exceptionally low despite our vanishing savings and rapid growth.

And it's comfortable for our trading partners and for those supplying the capital. Some, such as China, depend heavily on our expanding domestic markets. And for the most part, the central banks of the emerging world have been willing to hold more and more dollars, which are, after all, the closest thing the world has to a truly international currency.

The difficulty is that this seemingly comfortable pattern can't go on indefinitely. I don't know of any country that has managed to consume and invest 6 percent more than it produces for long. The United States is absorbing about 80 percent of the net flow of international capital. And at some point, both central banks and private institutions will have their fill of dollars.

Finally, the US trade deficit has exploded. Here is a chart of from the St. Louis Federal Reserve:

The St. Louis Reserve published a report in late 2006 that showed how important oil was to this figure. This indicates how important energy independence would really help with the trade deficit.

So let's sum up.

1.) The weakest job growth since WWII led to a declining median family income.

2.) In order to keep spending the U.S. consumer continued to save less and borrow more.

3.) At the national level, the U.S. government has issued over $500 billion dollars of net new debt per year since 2002. This has led to an increased reliance on foreign investors to finance our way of life.

4.) The trade deficit has continued to expand, although oil is responsible for a fair amount of that increase.

5.) In short, the U.S. continues to consume more than it produces.

At some point, we will have to pay the bill.

This is the end result of the "Bush boom" or "the greatest story never told."

If the story was so great, we wouldn't need people to remind us of how good it is.

 

Comments
80
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:

I very much agree with your excellent analysis of the "Bush Boom". The one item that I might expand on is your statement that oil is responsible for a fair amount of that increase in the trade deficit. While true, this might cause some to believe that oil is responsible for most of the deficit itself. The graph and numbers at http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/tbalcat6.html show that "petroleum and products" were about 32 percent of the trade deficit in 2006. Looking at the latest BEA numbers at the source given on that page, it's risen to about 36 percent of the trade deficit in 2007. Hence, while oil is responsible for a fair amount of the increase as you said, it's still just about a third of the trade deficit itself.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:49 AM on 04/08/2008

How come I didn't see this on Faux Newts?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:57 PM on 04/07/2008

Because Faux Noise would never stoop so high as to put facts before their viewers. Welcome to the videodome.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:06 PM on 04/07/2008

My job went to Mexico, my kids in Iraq and the Chinese own the bank that's forclosing on my home. According to Neil Cavuto I'm helping the economy by investing internationally. Who knew!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:27 AM on 04/08/2008

Let's take this analysis further and look how it applies to the current recession. So whether we are growing or in a recession depends on the economy on the margin....that little big extra the consumer does or does not spend that means the economy is growing or shrinking. According to Bonddad's post this little bit extra during the last 7 years was provided by the government's and the consumers' deficit spending whether it was borrowing from abroad or from the home equity piggybank. If the consumer's credit card has now been cut off or at least the limit reduced and the government has to stop or at least curtail its deficit spending, where is the growth going to come from to actually get us out of this recession. Wage growth isn't apparently going to do it, neither is wealth from the stock market. Savings are gone. Are we going to rely on foreigners buying out goods with the now devalued (and further devaluing dollar) to bring us out of this. The pundits on CNBC and elsewhere keep pushing that maybe we have hit bottom, but I just don't buy it. This could be a long recession.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:06 PM on 04/07/2008

You don't seriously expect the news networks to do anything about this information when there are so many pretty white girls going missing, do you? On the serious side.... we're doomed! (My wife sometimes compares me to Eyore!)

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:41 PM on 04/07/2008

You're basically blaming President Bush for America's behavior. If this is a recession, what was it when Clinton was in office with worse statistics?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:24 PM on 04/07/2008

You weren't paying attention to the graphs. The mostest, worstest statistics have been charted during the Bush years.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:53 PM on 04/07/2008

But if that were true it would reflect poorly on Bush so it cant be true.
that is the key to seeing the truth.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:13 PM on 04/07/2008

President Bush isn't responsible for consumer debt. That's a personl decision. Looking at the median income chart, all the Bush years were higher than the preceding years. There maybe some of you who weren't around during the Carter and Regan years, when real recessions took place. There is a world of difference.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:58 PM on 04/07/2008

No, you're right, the president didn't force anyone to take on any debt. Of course, his fiscal policies forced many people to take on debt since they didn't have any MONEY to PAY for THINGS like FOOD, GAS, HOUSING, etc....

Further, his economic policies were specifically tailored to cause this sort of no growth in wages, with a HUGE growth in productivity, coupled with cheap money available for people to borrow.....

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:01 PM on 04/08/2008

It is the biggest irony of all. The economy DEPENDS on us the consumers (read: regular folks, totally maxed out), but the rich get the tax cuts to stimulate the economy.

This is a 6-inches thick wool in front of our eyes.

One more comment. The late Peter Drucker, the management guru, said that the rich do not contribute to the growth of an economy. And what do we do? We give them more money (tax breaks, loopholes etc etc etc...) to make our economy better.

But should I be surprised? Jesus told us to "love each other." And what do we do? We kill each other.

Got bless America.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:19 PM on 04/07/2008

Maybe Jesus should have told us to kill each other. In fact, if you think about it, maybe he's not god since he would have known that were he omniscient!

But I digress, that means that we need to go back to TAXING THE RICH!!! They use more of the economy, they can pay more for it!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:02 PM on 04/08/2008

I remember back in 1984, working as a cub reporter at the UCLA Daily Bruin, talking to an economist about the budget deficit back then, who said that deficit spending was a good thing for a country. I also remember, being 21 years old and having no knowledge of economics, that his statement made absolutely no sense to me. Today I can see how borrowing money from other countries makes sense by keeping the flow of money moving around the world. But at some point you gotta pay the bill, and not by taking out another freakin' credit card!

Hale, great post as usual.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:05 PM on 04/07/2008

Hale, I am one of your most appreciative readers.

But ...

You are great at analyzing our position but a little short on suggesting how we extricate ourself from the quagmire. I appreciate your Socratic approach, but I would also appreciate the occasional discussion around a solution.

How about it?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:43 AM on 04/07/2008

I am thinking more along the lines of raising margin on trades ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-keiser/fixing-the-problems-on-wa_b_95340.html ), increasing fractional holdings, breaking up the Fed so it can regulate markets more effectively ( http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/ettahulme;_ylt=AmiSJKss.9dlOtkww6aN7NgDwLAF )

There are a lot of suggestions out there. I would appreciate a critical take on some of them from someone like Hale.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:27 PM on 04/07/2008

I think one example was pointed out in the last chart. We need to get a national energy policy that will reduces our reliance on oil and into more sustainable, renewable sources.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:30 AM on 04/07/2008

Speaking with my engineering hat on, I can tell you that there are currently no viable renewable alternatives to fossile and nuclear fuels. There is a lot we could do about making more efficient use of the energy we do generate. We are an energy prolifigate society, probably because we have never understood the true cost of the energy we use. Our houses are poorly designed, our public transport needs to be radically improved, we need to telecommute more ...

I think the most promising energy source is geothermal energy. If we could only tap into the vast heat reserves beneath us we could escape the constraints that are starting to throttle us.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:41 PM on 04/07/2008

But that's the point. We not only need to become VASTLY more energy efficient, we also need to actually RESEARCH the other forms, so that when the oil DOES run out in a very short period of time, we will HAVE such resources. In addition to this, the simple act of research will cause growth, starting in ONE sector, but moving, eventually, to the whole of the economy!

I don't have the exact numbers in front of me right now, but I saw somewhere that a properly aimed government research program returns somewhere around $7 to the economy for every $1 spent!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:48 PM on 04/07/2008

Couldn't agree more. Problem is, right now too much of that money is being spent on biofuel, which reduces oil imports at the expense of almost every other significant metric. We really need to pry the oil and agricultural interests out of our government and get people who are truly committed to developing alternative technology to direct the research.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:21 PM on 04/07/2008

True, that's why we need a "Manhattan Project" type of research program. Not one where the government pays COMPANIES to do the research.....

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:52 AM on 04/08/2008

Better upgrade your engineering "hat." Wind energy is now competitive with energy produced by fossil fuels in many parts of the US (e.g., northern Great Plains, west Texas, off the coast of the northeastern US) even without government subsidies. And it will become even more competitive as the cost for a barrel of oil approaches $120. If the TRUE costs of coal mining (i.e., degraded aquifers, foul air, mountaintop removal) are considered, wind energy is even competitive with coal. With the current investor tax credit of 30% due to expire for solar energy at the end of 2008, the situation for solar energy is problematic right now. Solar energy is unlikely to ever be competitive with carbon-based energy. But wind energy is a different story. Visit the website for the National Renewable Energy Lab to read the numbers.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:10 PM on 04/07/2008

Pont taken, I'm not saying we shouldn't reap what we can from the wind, but wind energy isn't entirely reliable. By 2010 we should have around 20GW (sporadic) installed installed in the US (about 1% of total supply), which is both impressive and unimpressive, depending on how you choose to see it.

One thing that seems to be missing in the prospectus is the effect of draining all this wind energy. In theory there is enough of it to power the world three times over. I suspect the limit will prove to be much, much lower.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:10 PM on 04/07/2008

That is my point. We aren't investing in ways to tap that geothermal energy, nor are we investing in ways to make any renewable energy source on any meaningful scale.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:47 PM on 04/07/2008

In retrospect, selling our houses to each other probably wasn't the best thing to base the economy on.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:25 AM on 04/07/2008

A story my father told me. Two peanut sellers on the street were selling very few peanuts. So, to "increase business," they decided to buy from each other. Soon, they were sold out, "boom" in modern terms, but with no money, "bust" in modern terms.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:10 PM on 04/07/2008

We already knew this was likely to happen 8 years ago.

Bush repeatedly spoke about how early intervention to reduce the depth of the recession could lead to a slower recovery.

You say that job growth was slower than any other recovery. You neglect to mention that the unemployment rate at the bottom of the recession was lower than any other recession, so there was less to gain back.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Us_unemployment_rates_1950_2005.png

I think it's self evident that the deflating stock market bubble, 9/11, the extremely overvalued dollar, and corporate scandals all could have led to a cataclysmic recession, but instead we had one of the mildest.

Sure, it's fun to bash Bush over how few jobs were added, but the difference between 6% unemployment in 2000 and almost 10% unemployment in 1980 is ENORMOUS. If you were one of those 4% that were able to keep their job because the recession was blunted, I think you'd have a different opinion of what Bush was trying to do. And that was the argument Bush himself made 8 years ago when he argued that it was worth it to trade a shallow recession for a slow recovery.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:43 AM on 04/07/2008

As suggested by Bonddad and the second graph at http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data , there are alternate measures of unemployment. It's therefore useful to look at the employment figures from the two major surveys (payroll and household) as well. You can find a table and graph showing those numbers at http://usbudget.blogspot.com/2008/03/job-growth-under-bush-and-prior.html .

The graph and table show at least one other interesting fact. They show 15 presidential terms since 1949. In almost every term of a Democratic president, the growth in household survey, nonfarm, and private employment was greater than the growth in the labor force. Conversely, in almost every term of a Republican president, the growth in household survey, nonfarm, and private employment was less than the growth in the labor force. The only three exceptions in the 15 terms were Carter, Reagan's second term and G.W. Bush's second term through February (except for private employment).

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:36 AM on 04/08/2008

This is a continuation of the previous answer.

There are two indicators that show the labor market is nowhere near as healthy as you think. The average and median duration of unemployment have been hovering around 16 and 8 weeks, respectively, far above their troughs at the end of the last expansion. If things were as fine as you are arguing, these numbers would return to levels at the end of the 1990s expansion. You also might want to look at Not in "Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available" "Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available,Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking" as further indicators that the labor market has not been in good shape.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:19 PM on 04/07/2008

First, you do not discount a single statistic I mentioned. That in and of itself is telling.

Secondly, you again use the 20 million illegals figure. What government agency is this statistics from?

As the chart you show demonstrates, the unemployment rate increased under Bush to about 6% and then decreased. Then the unemployment rate dropped to 4%. Econ 101 says a decreasing supply should increase prices. A decreasing supply of labor should therefore lead to an increase in wages.

The answer is the improvement in the unemployment rate was in fact far more ephemeral than the headline numbers indicate. The first reason for this is this is the first expansion where the BLS has used the birth/death model to adjust for the creation and destruction of businesses. As a result job creation was actually weaker than advertised. see this column: a href ="http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/04/more-nfp-bd-adj.html

The second reason is the number of people participating in the labor force decreased. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the labor participation rate decaresed from 67% to 66% for this expansion.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:18 PM on 04/07/2008

Okay, if you don't like 20 million, then how about a more conservative estimate of 12 million, with 850k more each year?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8G6U2ko8&show_article=1

Where in your analysis do you account for this as it impacts the official "job growth" statistics?

I respect your effort at compiling these charts and giving everyone a good foundation for discussing the topic. And although they are accurate, they are not comprehensive.

You yourself admit that "As a result..." of the sluggish job growth, growth in household incomes are sluggish. The two are inextricably tied together.

Heading into 2000 as we approached "full employment", job growth stalled out, as is evident in the unemployment rate chart I posted (before Bush "cooked the books", I might add). Why not compare job growth in 2003-2007 with 1995-1998, since they are both at similar unemployment rates?

Although I'm absolutely certain you didn't intend to do this, we can compare these two periods on your first chart. If you look at the dotted line versus the gray line, you could almost perfectly match an imaginary line through the two of them, with a little tapering at the end of the dotted line.

Where the dotted line drops off and the gray line picks back up roughly matches the end of the 90's where the unemployment rates were similar. So despite your doom and gloom job growth is not any worse than the most similar period of the 90's.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:16 PM on 04/07/2008

Then you want to change the time frames to compare unemployment rates to a time frame that makes Bush's numbers look passable. How convenient. Econ 101. The National Bureau of Economic Research is the organization that officially dates expansions and contractions. According to them, he 1990s expansion started in March 1991 and the current expansion started in November 2001. If you want to use 2003 as your starting point, feel free. But the last expansion still started in March 1991 according to the agency that officially dates economic cycles. If you don't like that, well, tough.

Here's the link: http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:05 PM on 04/07/2008

This is why debating people who listen to right wing radio is so completely useless.

First, I asked you to provide a source for your illegals statistic which you did. But notice how the number you provided is 40% below the original number you provided. Please accept that your credibility took a big hit on that one.

Secondly, you offer no research about the impact of illegals on wages, instead only saying the relationship "exists." 12 million people is approximately 8.7% of the workforce. But that is a bit of a misnomer because illegal labor is disproportionately impacting a smaller area of the economy. For example, I don't think illegal labor is going to have a really strong effect on medical salaries. Because illegal labor has a small skill set (largely manual labor) I can't see a monumental impact felt across socio-economic lines. So to argue the that 12 million illegals is the primary cause of real median family income declining for the duration of this expansion -- especially when job creation has at the lower end of the pay scale according to the BLS -- doesn't hold water.

Continued in next post

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:05 PM on 04/07/2008

Why do we keep track of unemployment rates? Don't people who have been unemployed for a lengthy time drop off the unemployed roll? What percentage of the population has a job and how much do they earn is what matters.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:52 PM on 04/07/2008