English

Nominal Growth Is Declining In The U.S.

You don’t have to be a market monetarist to recognize the urgent need for a higher level of nominal growth in the US economy. Higher nominal growth would result in lower unemployment, higher government revenues, lower social expenditure, a lower deficit, and a higher denominator for the debt ratio. Most importantly, it would create private-sector jobs, something our leaders supposedly care about.

If we would like to see, say, 4-5% real growth, then we need 6-7% nominal growth. The US economy performed at that level for most of the past thirty years. Recessions occurred, but were followed by a resumption of strong nominal and real growth. That isn’t happening this time.

We have heard many reasons suggested for the weakness of the current recovery. We can debate that subject. But what we can’t debate is the fact that nominal growth has been slowing for the past 18 months:
1Q12: 5.2%
2Q12: 4.5%
3Q12: 4.8%
4Q12: 3.8%
1Q13: 3.1%
2Q13: 2.9%

As I have said before, you can’t get 4-5% real growth with 3% nominal growth--not in this universe. The current level of nominal growth is dangerously low, and falling. Here is what the Fed has to say about this situation: “The Committee expects that, with appropriate policy accommodation, economic growth will pick up from its recent pace and the unemployment rate will gradually decline toward levels the Committee judges consistent with its dual mandate.”

That complacent forecast is surprising, considering the fact that economic growth is declining, and that neither of the Fed’s mandates are anywhere near being achieved after four years of “recovery”. The Fed’s prescription is to do more of the same, or maybe a bit less. These cycles are natural; be patient.

There is no acknowledgement that weak economic growth is a result of incorrect monetary policy. It is amazing to me that in all the public drama about the next Fed chairman, there is almost no discussion of the fact that the Fed has dropped the ball, and what it might do to get things moving again. Fed policy is a much more important topic than whether Larry Summers needs gender sensitivity training. The Fed needs a wake-up call.

Subscribe now
ps subscription image no tote bag no discount

Subscribe now

Get unlimited access to OnPoint, the Big Picture, and the entire PS archive of more than 14,000 commentaries, plus our annual magazine, for less than $2 a week.

SUBSCRIBE

“There is compelling evidence that the Japanese economy is suffering today from an aggregate demand deficiency. If monetary policy could deliver increased nominal spending, some of the difficult structural problems that Japan faces would no longer seem so difficult.”
--Ben Bernanke, Tokyo, 1999

http://prosyn.org/bx8DpmO;
  1. velasco94_YoustGettyImages_headswithbooksstaring Youst/Getty Images

    The Experts We Need

    Andrés Velasco

    Policy gurus spend too much time with others like them – top civil servants, high-flying journalists, successful businesspeople – and too little time with ordinary voters. If they could become “humble, competent people on a level with dentists,” as John Maynard Keynes once suggested, voters might identify with them and find them trustworthy.

  2. benami152_KiyoshiOtaPoolGettyImages_trumpmelaniaeatinginJapan Kiyoshi Ota - Pool/Getty Images

    Don’t Feed the Donald

    Shlomo Ben-Ami

    For Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, appeasing US President Donald Trump is not so much a choice as a necessity: he must prove to Japan’s people and their neighbors, particularly the Chinese, that he knows how to keep Trump on his side. But Abe's strategy won't work with a US administration as fickle and self-serving as Trump’s.

Cookies and Privacy

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. To find out more, read our updated cookie policy and privacy policy.