US economy slows: too much saving or too little investment?

Anyway you look at it, the US economy is slowing down.  Indeed, real GDP growth in the US based on the last quarter (Q 2106) has slowed to 1.9% year over year, not much above the rate of growth in the Eurozone. The decline in growth is the product of a decline in investment.  The investment drag is clear with GFCF in the Eurozone outpacing its US equivalent for the last two quarters.

Real GDP

Total investment in the US is now making no contribution at all to the expansion of the economy.  See how the green part of the bars below has disappeared.

Contributions to GDP

As I have shown before, this weak investment mirrors the deterioration in corporate profitability, which is now falling in the US.

Corporate profits growth

The productive sector of the US economy has particularly weakened and is now heavily contracting – in contrast to weak but steady growth in the Eurozone.

Industrial production growth

Most commentators argue that this is due to temporary hit to the energy sector following the collapse in oil prices.  But even if you exclude energy production, US manufacturing output is crawling along.

Manufacturing output growth

Alongside slowing real output, inflation in prices of goods and services has disappeared in both the US and the Eurozone.  Deflation is still close – another indicator of the long depression in the major economies.

Falling inflation

But here is the real irony that should confound the Keynesians who reckon that the cause of the depression is the failure of governments raise spending to compensate for ‘weak demand’.  Since 2008, the US economy has grown faster than the Eurozone.  And yet in the US government spending has made a negative contribution to that growth while, despite all the talk of German-imposed austerity, government consumption has provided a net boost to real GDP in most European countries since the crisis broke.  In other words, there has been more ‘austerity’ in the US than in Europe and yet the US economy has recovered better from the Great Recession!

The graph below shows that since 2008, the US economy has grown 10.8% but government spending (yellow bar) has shrunk, while the German economy has risen only 5.5% with government spending contributing over 2% pts of that.  Even ‘austerity’ UK has seen more government spending in its recovery.

GDP breakdown

Nevertheless, the Keynesians continue to claim that this low growth world is due to the lack of fiscal and monetary injections into the economy and has nothing to do with the underlying problems of the capitalist economy: low profitability, high debt and weak investment and poor productivity growth.  Only this week, Martin Wolf told us, yet again, that weak growth in the Eurozone is due to the failure of Germans to spend or invest rather than save.  Germany needs to absorb its ‘excess savings’ by spending to get Europe and the world going.

This is nonsense.  As I explained in some detail in a previous post, there is not a global savings glut that needs to be absorbed.  And German corporate savings as a share of GDP are not particularly high compared to other countries.  The issue is low investment, yes.  But why?  Wolf seems to think it is due to ignorant, rigid attitudes in Germany and elsewhere.  But the objective reason is low profitability from future investments and existing relatively high corporate debt.  Another way of looking at this is to say that it is a ‘supply-side’ problem, not one of the lack of demand.

An argument in these terms has broken out between the Keynesians and the neo-classical wing of mainstream economics.  A new paper by some top Keynesian economists, couched in extremely obtuse mathematical models, seeks to show that the current weak US economy is due to the inability of central banks to get interest rates low enough to stimulate investment.  The US economy is ‘zero-bound’ and so we have ‘secular stagnation’.  This is the Summers-Krugman explanation of this long depression.

In response, neoclassical economist John Cochrane has shown that these assumptions are just unrealistic.  “I read this paper as a brilliant negative result. It shows just how extreme the implicit assumptions are behind the policy blather. It shows just how empty the idea is, that our policy-makers understand any of this stuff at a scientific, empirically-tested level, and should take strong actions to offset the supposed problems these buzzwords allude to”. Cochrane’s alternative view is simple, he says.  Interest rates are low because inflation is near zero.  Growth is low because productivity growth is low.  Productivity growth is low because investment growth is low so the productive potential of the US economy has fallen back.  This is much closer to the Robert J Gordon explanation of the depression.

The policy conclusion of the Keynesian position is to pump yet more money into the banks and the economy (helicopter money next) and for governments to launch spending programmes.  The neoclassical supply-side policy position is to make companies more efficient by cutting wages and employment and reduce the ‘regulation’ of the capitalist companies to allow the ‘market’ to work; while cut government spending to reduce the level of debt.

Neither option has worked or will work.

5 Responses to “US economy slows: too much saving or too little investment?”

  1. Karl Martel Says:

    Reblogged this on Reconstruction communiste Comité Québec and commented:

    We think, Michael Roberts, keep up marxist analysis when he’s standing behind «Loi sur la baisse tendencielle du taux de proffit» to explain current capitalist economy crisis.

    “Nevertheless, the Keynesians continue to claim that this low growth world is due to the lack of fiscal and monetary injections into the economy and has nothing to do with the underlying problems of the capitalist economy: low profitability, high debt and weak investment and poor productivity growth. Only this week, Martin Wolf told us, yet again, that weak growth in the Eurozone is due to the failure of Germans to spend or invest rather than save. Germany needs to absorb its ‘excess savings’ by spending to get Europe and the world going.

    This is nonsense. As I explained in some detail in a previous post, there is not a global savings glut that needs to be absorbed. And German corporate savings as a share of GDP are not particularly high compared to other countries. The issue is low investment, yes. But why? Wolf seems to think it is due to ignorant, rigid attitudes in Germany and elsewhere. But the objective reason is low profitability from future investments and existing relatively high corporate debt. Another way of looking at this is to say that it is a ‘supply-side’ problem, not one of the lack of demand.”

    (…)

    “The policy conclusion of the Keynesian position is to pump yet more money into the banks and the economy (helicopter money next) and for governments to launch spending programmes. The neoclassical supply-side policy position is to make companies more efficient by cutting wages and employment and reduce the ‘regulation’ of the capitalist companies to allow the ‘market’ to work; while cut government spending to reduce the level of debt.”

    Neither option has worked or will work. https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/explaining-the-last-ten-years-keynes-or-marx-who-is-right/

  2. sartesian Says:

    Michael,

    Would be helpful if we could compare “like with like,” meaning for example, when you show the changes in GDP y-o-y since 2006, could you also please show the sectoral contributions to GDP growth (yoy) from the same date? That way we can see if and how changes in gross-fixed capital formation have changed over the same period.

    We see a pretty significant contribution of GFCF in the chart you provide from 2012– which is, I suspect, a reflection of the expanded investment in shale oil production, which has led to another bout of overproduction, and the collapse of prices and investment in the sector. If that is the case, then we have a case of slowing growth due to too much investment, not too little.

    • Daniel de França Diniz Rocha Says:

      Perhaps we could consider this investiment as small? It’s like building a factory, just to see that it is unproductive, so it is like dropping a bomb on it.

  3. Mike Ballard Says:

    Even though real wealth and real productivity are not growing as much as they were in the past, they are still growing. The point is for workers to realise that they are entitled to this ever growing accumulation of wealth and that their productivity gains should be turned into leisure time for themselves. The left should concentrate on these points while at the same time, urging workers to abolish the wage system and establish common ownership and democratic control over the collective product of their labour.

  4. Sam_w Says:

    “Since 2008, the US economy has grown faster than the Eurozone. And yet in the US government spending has made a negative contribution to that growth while, despite all the talk of German-imposed austerity, government consumption has provided a net boost to real GDP in most European countries since the crisis broke.”

    The fiscal stimulus has less effect in the US because the economy is highly financialised and the private sector aggregate debt is high. (around 142% of GDP). Germany ~80%

    Any spend which ends up on the assets side of the balance sheet for households or firms is put into financial instruments.
    Eg: pension funds, medical insurance, car insurance etc.

    Further example: Wall street is extraordinarily inefficient at investing back into the real economy (in the order of 99% inefficient). So the rentier capitalism behaviour is firstly encouraged and the profits don’t do anything in terms of GDP.

    In Germany there is more domestic socialism especially for controlling rent on housing/social housing.

    In Australia at the moment (election time) what little the neoliberal government does in the form of (broadly) fiscal policy is really most beneficial if its immediately invested into pensions or stocks.

    Id put it to you Michael that you are looking at economists whom are still on training wheels as far as Keynes is concerned. The liquidity trap idea is plausible + logical but wrong as Steve Keen puts it.
    If proper demand side fiscal policy is implemented its going to be more effective if the ‘wealth extraction’ component is demoted and ‘wealth creation’ capitalism encouraged.

    cheers

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: