July 2009
S M T W T F S
« Jun   Aug »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
Categories

Lagging Indicator

On the heels of today’s dismal unemployment report, the Wall Street Journal has an article out today:

Republicans Blame Obama Policies for Job Losses

Republicans are using today’s report on further U.S. job losses and the highest unemployment rate, 9.5%, in 25 years to criticize President Barack Obama’s administration on its fiscal policies.

While I certainly concur that Mr. Obama’s economic policies are worthy of severe criticism, I think this particular grandstanding is  unwarranted. The reason is that unemployment is a lagging indicator of the economy’s performance. In layman’s terms, that means that unemployment peaks sometime after the trough of an economic downturn, not at the trough, or before. A rule of thumb is that unemployment lags about six months, although sometimes the lag can be longer. So June’s unemployment is largely due to factors in place before Mr. Obama’s inauguration.

Now, arguably, Mr. Obama’s party gets the lion’s share of the blame in setting up the mortgage crisis that triggered the current downturn. But I understand that reasonable people can differ on the causal factors that brought us to our current juncture.

And there are those who point to Mr. Obama’s election as being a turning point in economic expectations. After the election of the most leftist President in our history,  this argument goes, money started to flow out of investments and into various safehavens (like mattresses and gold). The main datum supporting this theory is the continued lackluster performance of the stock markets. The DJIA, for instance, is still down 13% from election day, including a 200-ish point drop today (the NASDAQ Composite, though, is up 1.2% since election day). By this theory, we should set the line of scrimmage not on inauguration day, but on election day plus one, when Mr. Obama set up his Office of the President-Elect. And again by this theory, the six-month lag was struck in early May 2009.

But I’m not arguing that right now. Maybe I believe it, maybe I don’t — I’m still on the fence. In the long run I don’t think it will matter much, because in the long run I think we are in for a Japanese-style “Lost Decade“, due fully to the incompetence of the Obama administration. But only time will tell.

However, one thing is clear at this early juncture — Mr. Obama’s economic team thought they were immune from the normal operations of the national economy, including the lagging indicators. The blog Innocent Bystanders has been standing by, holding their feet to the fire, as it were. Back before the memory of most Obama voters, when the administration was arguing for its trillionish “stimulus” bill, they put out a claim that without the stimulus bill, unemployment would peak at around 9% in the third quarter of 2010. With the stimulus bill, they claimed, unemployment would peak at 7.5% in the third quarter of 2009. Here’s is IB’s graphical summary of their prognosticatory skills:

Stimulus and Jobs

One might be tempted to judge the Obama team’s economic competence by this yardstick. I am.

Now, it is a hopeful sign that the rate of increase of unemployment slowed. I hope this is a harbinger of moderation in our economic situation. I think the next couple of months will tell us a great deal about the future.  If unemployment continues to climb — and in particular, if it resumes its previous rate of increase, watch out. On the other hand, if June really was the peak month, if unemployment drops back to 9% by the fall, the markets may stabilize, money may begin to flow back into investments, and no one will remember how badly the Obama team blew their economic predictions.

But I am not hopeful. The Democrat-controlled House  of Representatives just passed H.R. 2454, the ACES Act, which will raise the cost of energy — which is to say, the cost of just about everything — by a hefty amount (the discussion over at Transterrestrial Musings suggests about 25%). Recent reports also suggest an unwillingness of international lenders to fund the Obama deficit. Democrats are determined to take action on the health insurance situation, and many bystanders fear the worst. None of these leading indicators bode well.

Now the official LEI put out by the Conference Board shows three consecutive months of increases in the leading index. But it doesn’t take into account the political environment. We shall have to see if economics can trump politics. If the recklessness of Congress can be restrained — if ACESA is held up or stripped in the Senate, if “health care reform” can be stopped — then maybe we’ll get through this, even with the massive deficits that Mr. Obama has created. By the way, here’s a reminder:

Obama Deficit

 

2 Responses to “Lagging Indicator”

  1. dave says:

    I’ll look more closely at this post later, but I note a few things right off the bat. The first is a more reasonable tone. More concretely
    “But I’m not arguing that right now. Maybe I believe it, maybe I don’t — I’m still on the fence. In the long run I don’t think it will matter much, because in the long run I think we are in for a Japanese-style “Lost Decade“, due fully to the incompetence of the Obama administration. But only time will tell.”
    The only thing I disagree here is is, really’ the adjective “fully”. That becomes more lausible if you consider continuing Bush policies as being “Obamas”. In particular, the post 1992 policy of letting Goldman Sachs and its alums run the economy, mainly for the benefit of GS but also othere large bankers (whom they do substantial business with). But he has some excellent economists with major influence on staff (as well as Volker, who seems to be ignored. Sadly.) Romer and Summers are both excellent economists- and neither is markedly liberal. Both have a high regard for merkets- as all serious economists doI think your worries about “who he’s listening to’ are over-played. Who he listened to in college isn’t nearly as important as who has his ear now.
    As to the WSJ article you started with, I just read Brad DeLongs piece on it, where he bemoaned the reporting at WSJ these days: printing the official GOP response is not reporting. The WSJ has an excellent record of reporting. The opinion page is a different matter, where they routinely assert as uncontroverted fact things reported to be false on their own front page. (I’d have to dig a while to find actual citations on that, since I don’t read it regularly. But I’ve seen it and others have pointed to it frequently. Fine, don’t believe me! It’s your head in the sand.)
    While I’m here, let me point out a generally excellent econ blog (and one with no political slant apparent to me):https://self-evident.org/

Leave a Reply