Are We Leaving the Recession Behind

The latest from Robert Barr in the Floral Trend Tracker. He makes a good point about the money that federal, state and local governments are borrowing for their programs.

With a number of economic indicators flashing green over the past couple of months, it sure seems like we're leaving the recession behind. Even new home sales are rebounding, up 15% in the last three months (May, through July) relative to the three months prior (February through April), even after seasonal adjustment.

But even if we're in a "statistical" recovery, the economic climate will feel sluggish. Expect to hear a lot about our "jobless" recovery well into 2010, as though that's a contradiction in terms. It isn't; the last two recoveries were marked with very low job growth for quite some time. In fact, the jobless recovery of 1992 felt so oppressive that the presidential campaign treated it like a recession: "It's the economy, stupid!" And 20 months after the recovery began (as was determined later), the poor economy was a key contributor to President George H.W. Bush's defeat in November 1992.

So it ís not surprising that, even as we get some positive reports, we see that employment is still falling, with the number of payroll jobs 4.2% lower than it was a year ago.

Why such a lackluster recovery? The economy is still making major adjustments to the severe imbalances that created the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Bank lending activity remains low, especially for small business expansion. The willingness of banks to lend to consumers continued its two-year descent during the summer. True, analysts were quick to point out that the declines were less severe than those of a year ago. But still, after the plummet of the past year, we're still falling to even lower levels today. Bank lending standards across all major loan categories to households and businesses also continued to tighten.

For their part, households are improving their balance sheets ñ saving more and consuming less. Many suggest that this lack of spending is harmful to the economy — as if to be economically beneficial, income should be spent immediately and not saved. But that's a misconception. It's easier to see the beneficial effects of immediate spending (Look! They bought cars, homes, and furniture!) but the beneficial effects of saving, while less visible, are nonetheless critical to long-term economic growth and prosperity. More household savings expands the pool of available capital for firms to borrow to expand their business.

That means funding the same level of economic activity will require less borrowing from overseas and lower interest rates in the economy.

Then the issue becomes: if rates are low and funds for lending are available, are businesses willing to borrow and expand production? How confident are they that the economy will be ready to buy their expanded set of products? As always, business confidence and entrepreneurial assurance will need to be in place to generate a sustainable recovery.

Looking long-term, the massive increase in government debt will offset the progress households are making in correcting their debt imbalances. The deficit-to-GDP ratio in 2008 was 3.2%; in 2009 it's expected to be 11.2%, and the administration ís ten-year forecast projects that the U.S. will exceed $9 trillion in total deficits just over the next ten years. That's in addition to the $5.8 trillion national debt we've already accumulated.

Why is that important for future economic growth? Because the money that federal, state and local governments borrow for their programs can't be lent to businesses to fund private-sector projects. Consequently, the more we allow the government to borrow, the less we have to channel toward productive investment.

Transition time

The latest from Bill Conerly:


Original post at ConerlyConsulting.com

From the latest SAF Trend Tracker

From Robert Barr...

Has the economic storm passed? The trashing of the wind and rain has settled down significantly, and perhaps it’s time for consumers and business to come up out of their shelters, look around, start removing debris, and start the economic recovery.

That’s one way to think about the economic conditions today — but a more appropriate analogy is that the relative calm we’ve seen during the late spring and early summer is only the eye of a passing hurricane. We’ve gone through great economic tumult, especially since September 2008, but there’s still more economic adjustment yet to come.

Two areas of particular concern that haven’t yet grabbed the headlines in the same way that residential real estate has are commercial real estate, where refinancing maturing loans is becoming more and more difficult, and consumer credit cards, which will probably face huge write-offs in the coming few years.

And we’re still facing an adjustable-rate mortgage reset problem, as the popular five-year ARMs taken out in 2005-06 go through the same initial reset phase we saw in subprime mortgages (which generally reset after the first two or three years). One mitigating factor is that today’s lower interest rates mean that the new, reset rates won’t generate the same amount of payment shock seen with the subprime mortgages.

Meanwhile, consumers aren’t spending in the same way they had a few years ago, pushing the consumer savings rate from about zero a few years ago to almost 7% of GDP this spring. That’s prudent, of course, and good news for the long-term health of the economy. Consumers know that jobs are being cut and that the soaring government deficit will have to result in higher taxes down the road. Baby boomers, seeing the devastation in their 401(k) accounts just as their oldest members reach retirement, know they need to save more today to ensure a financially secure tomorrow. All of this is keeping consumers from reaching for their wallets, and it amounts to another difficult economic adjustment.

Meanwhile, in addition to grappling with the recession, businesses face a couple of critical unknowns in how they will be able to operate within the next few years. Whether or not you support national healthcare or the cap-and-trade energy legislation working its way through Congress, there’s great uncertainty about how this will play out in two to five years from now. Sound long-term investment decisions are difficult to make when the rules of the game are subject to such significant change – even apart from whether the changes actually support or harm the business climate. Even if the recovery does take hold, expect another “jobless” recovery as businesses bide their time to sort out the ramifications of what the federal government decides to impose.

Meanwhile, the rate of economic contraction in the global economy accelerated during the first half of 2009, and that of course will harm our exporting industries.

What to make of all this? Despite the media reports of the “green shoots” of economic recovery, we still have many difficult economic adjustments ahead of us that will keep any recovery subdued for some time. And that timetable is subject to whatever comes out of Washington, DC – not a good position for private businesses looking to rebuild after the destruction of the storm of the past couple of years.

Hark, what light in yon window breaks?

The latest from Bill Conerly:

Steps Businesses Should Take in the Midst of Financial Crisis

Here is an EXCELLENT short-list of action steps for the rest of the economic downturn heading into recovery:

• Love your customers. Get closer to them than you have ever been; understand and aggressively address their issues. In a poor economy, competition will increasingly be based on price, so that you need to be able to articulate your value proposition in order to justify holding your prices above the competition's, or to be able to just hold on to the business;

• Love your bankers. Communicate with them; let them know what you are doing. Convince them that you are thinking about them and you will do whatever it takes to make sure their loans are repaid. The biggest mistake companies make with bankers is not staying in constant communication with them and then at the last minute surprising them with bad news. Debt will be difficult to obtain so make sure your credibility and communications are in place so that you will be in line to get your share. Keep your loans in good repair - do not bust covenants. Bankers will be less forgiving in this environment;

• Love your shareholders. It is much easier to get additional capital from people who know you than from people who do not know you;

• Love your employees, particularly your key employees. Although unemployment will increase, there will continue to be demand for key people and for people having skills that are in short supply. Your employees will feel insecure about the company and about their jobs. Keep them informed and involved in the process so that they do not make an uninformed decision to leave your company.

• Be relentlessly focused and realistic about your business and its prospects. You are now in survival mode and you need to be clear about what it takes to survive. Review your business strategy and value proposition to ensure they are in line with the needs of the current market environment;

• Cut costs, cut costs again, and cut costs for the third time;

• Watch your customers' credit rating and payment history. Most will attempt to use you as a financing source and it is likely that several will fail.

• Review your payables policies. Take full advantage of the time your vendors will allow you to pay and pay just before you endanger critical relationships.

• Consider alternative sources of financing, such as asset-based lenders.

• Look for opportunities - crises breed extraordinary opportunities.

Source: Bill Patterson and Kit Webster, BridgePoint Consulting, Inc.

Hat Tip to Paul Wright for the link!

Warning signs that a business is in trouble

From the latest GrowerTalks: Long before the bank says NO and the final profit and loss statement bleeds red ink, there are warning signs that a business may be in trouble. Whether you’re optimistic about your future or feeling a wee-bit stressed these days, it’s crucial to monitor for early indicators of coming problems. Think of it as preventative maintenance—something you’d give your vehicle in order to fix the little problems before the engine blows....continued.

Several folks, including myself, were interviewed for the article. Click here for the full scoop.

What consumers are still doing

Despite the recession, there are still some activities consumers are willing to spend their money on. Sageworks, Inc., a firm that tracks private-company financial performance, has compiled a list of seven. Number 2 signals opportunity for the landscape service sector.

• 1) Repairing their cars instead of buying new autos. Auto repair shops grew their sales by an average of 2.4% over the last 12 months. In contrast, car dealerships saw their sales decline by 9.7% in the same period.
• 2) Remodeling and repairing their homes instead of moving. Building equipment contractors (such as electricians, plumbing and heating contractors) saw their sales increase by 4.6% in the last 12 months.
  
• 3) Shopping at grocery stores more than eating out. Grocery stores experienced average sales growth of 6.7% over the last 12 months. Sit-down restaurants saw growth of 3.9% in the same period.
• 4) Attending technical and trade school. Trade and technical schools saw their top-line sales grow by 7.8% in the last 23 months, compared to growth of 5.9% in 2007.
• 5) Going to the dentist. The average dentists’ office experienced sales growth of 6.9% in the last 12 months, up from 4.9% in 2007.
• 6) Getting personal care services such as haircuts and manicures. Hair salons, barber shops, nail salons, and skin care providers experienced an average of 4.5% sales growth in the last 12 months.
• 7) Visiting an accountant. Accounting firms saw average top-line revenues grow by 10.2% over the last 12 months, putting the accounting industry in the top 20 industries in the country by sales growth.

The impact of increased savings

Two forces that until recently turbo-charged US consumer spending—growing household debt and a falling savings rate—have gone into reverse. In late 2008, as households started reducing their indebtedness and saving more, consumption tumbled.

New research from the McKinsey Global Institute shows that the economic impact of further US consumer deleveraging will depend on income growth. Without it, each percentage point increase in the savings rate would reduce spending by more than $100 billion—a serious drag on any recovery. Relatively healthy income growth, on the other hand, would help households reduce their debt burden without trimming consumption as much.

Consumer spending rebounds

The economy contracted at a 6.1% annual rate in the first quarter, which was a little more than the 4.6% decrease in real GDP expected by economists. The best news in the B.E.A. report report was the rebound in Personal Consumption Expenditures during the first quarter. Consumer spending grew at 2.2% during the first quarter (see graph above) following two quarters of negative growth (-4.3% in 2008:Q4 and -3.9% in 2008:Q3), and was just slightly below the 2.27% average growth since 2001.

REUTERS -- There were some bright spots in the report. Consumer spending, which accounts for over two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, rose 2.2%, after collapsing in the second half of last year. Consumer spending was boosted by a 9.4% jump in purchases of durable goods, the first advance after four quarters of decline.

WSJ -- GDP acts as a scoreboard for the economy by measuring all goods and services produced. Its biggest component is consumer spending, which accounts for about 70% of GDP. First-quarter spending increased 2.2%, after dropping 4.3% in the fourth quarter.

Hopefully, a good portion of this increase in consumer spending was in the lawn and garden category. As you probably saw in the Making Cents sales poll, 46% indicated that March sales were higher than same-month sales in 2008, 4% indicated they were the same level, and 50% indicated fewer March sales than last year. This is consistent with my conversations across the country as well.

Be sure to complete the April poll on the right side of the page.

Strong showing of capital goods orders

According to data released today from the Department of Commerce, orders for non-defense capital-equipment goods excluding aircraft rose 1.5% in March after a 4.3% gain in February. Such core capital-goods orders are considered the best gauge of capital spending by businesses, and are also considered a leading economic indicator. The two-month increase of 5.8% in new orders for capital goods was the strongest two-month gain in more than four years, since the 6.5% two-month increase for December 2004 and January 2005.

Three tips for cost cutting

Almost all companies have or will need to cut costs to survive in the current environment. Unfortunately, not all cost cutting is done smartly. Consider these three pieces of advice before making cuts:

1. Put strategy first. Cuts across the board rarely, if ever, lead to effective results. Laying out strategy first helps you decide where to cut, and also helps employees accept the cuts as a step toward a goal.
   
   
2. Focus on good customers. Rather than cutting valued services to valuable customers, "fire" high-maintenance customers who cause you unnecessary complexity. Focus on serving your more cost-effective customers who are happy with your products and services as they are.
   
   
3. Keep your business simple. In a healthy economy, it's easy to overlook processes and activities that are redundant or overly involved. Simplifying them can save you money with the added bonus of increasing both customer and employee satisfaction.

Recession ending this year?

According to the New York Fed, "Research beginning in the late 1980s documents the empirical regularity that the slope of the yield curve is a reliable predictor of future real economic activity."

On Tuesday, the New York Fed released its latest "Probability of U.S. Recession Predicted by Treasury Spread," with data through March 2009, and the Fed's recession probability forecast through March 2010 (see chart above, click to enlarge). The NY Fed's model uses the spread between 10-year and 3-month Treasury rates (currently at 2.61%) to calculate the probability of a recession in the United States twelve months ahead (see chart below of the Treasury spread).

The Fed's data show that the recession probability peaked during the October 2007 to April 2008 period at around 35-40%, and has been declining since then to less than 10% for December 2008 and January 2009. Looking forward through 2009, the Fed's model shows a recession probability of only about 1% on average through the next 12 months, and below 1% by the end of the year (0.82% in December 2009). By March of 2010, the recession probability will be only 0.53%, close to the lowest level since mid-2005.

Further, the Treasury spread has been above 2% for the last 12 months, a pattern consistent with the economic recoveries following the last six recessions (see chart above).

Signs of vibrancy

Now, after months of seemingly nonstop bad news, there are hopeful signs on the horizon. Below the surface of gloom, there are signs of a new vibrancy. They include:

• A broad rally in stocks, confirmed last Thursday, continuing into this week and led by the beaten-down financials.
• A surprising 22% surge in February housing starts to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 583,000 units.
• A back-to-back jump in retail sales ex autos, in both January and February.
• A return to profitability at several major banks, including Citigroup, Bank of America and JPMorgan.
• A doubling in the obscure but important Baltic Dry Index, a key indicator of global trade flows.
• An upwardly sloping yield curve, which Fed research suggests all but ensures a rebound by year-end.
• A Housing Affordability Index that has hit an all-time high.
• A two-month improvement in wholesale used-car prices, measured by the Manheim Index.
• A rise in Monster's Employment Index in February, suggesting a turn in the job market may be around the corner.
• A 4 1/2-year high in the dollar against other major currencies, on a trade-weighted basis.
• A sharp increase in the money supply, as measured by M2 and M1. Weekly M2 growth has averaged 10.1% year-over-year since the start of 2009, while M1 has grown at a 14.6% rate.
• A two-month rally in the Index of Leading Indicators.
• A growing body of evidence that the "liquidity crunch" is dead. Data show nearly $14 trillion in liquidity on the sidelines of the markets, ready to boost consumer spending, credit growth or further stock market gains.

Data Source: IBD Editorial

1980s vs. Now

It could be a lot worse. It WAS a lot worse in the early 1980s.
HT: Mark Perry

Marketing during a recession

How should your marketing change because of the recession? Harvard professor John Quelch has eight tips for Marketing Your Way Through a Recession:

1. Research the customer. Instead of cutting the marketing budget, you need to know more than ever how consumers are redefining value and responding to the recession. Price elasticity curves are changing. Consumers take more time searching for durable goods and negotiate harder at the point of sale. They are more willing to postpone purchases, trade down, or buy less. Must-have features of yesterday are today's can-live-withouts. Trusted brands are especially valued and they can still launch new products successfully, but interest in new brands and new categories fades. Conspicuous consumption becomes less prevalent.

2. Focus on family values. When economic hard times loom, we tend to retreat to our village. Look for cozy hearth-and-home family scenes in advertising to replace images of extreme sports, adventure, and rugged individualism. Zany humor and appeals on the basis of fear are out. Greeting card sales, telephone use, and discretionary spending on home furnishings and home entertainment will hold up well, as uncertainty prompts us to stay at home but also stay connected with family and friends.

3. Maintain marketing spending. This is not the time to cut marketing. It is well documented that brands that increase advertising during a recession, when competitors are cutting back, can improve market share and return on investment at lower cost than during good economic times. Uncertain consumers need the reassurance of known brands, and more consumers at home watching television can deliver higher than expected audiences at lower cost-per-thousand impressions. Brands with deep pockets may be able to negotiate favorable advertising rates and lock them in for several years. If you have to cut marketing spending, try to maintain the frequency by shifting from more expensive forms to less expensive forms, such as the use of direct marketing, which gives more immediate sales impact.

4. Adjust product portfolios. Marketers must reforecast demand for each item in their product lines as consumers trade down to models that stress good value, such as cars with fewer options. Tough times favor multi-purpose goods over specialized products, and weaker items in product lines should be pruned. In grocery-products categories, good-quality own-brands gain at the expense of national brands. Industrial customers prefer to see products and services unbundled and priced separately. Gimmicks are out; reliability, durability, safety, and performance are in. New products, especially those that address the new consumer reality and thereby put pressure on competitors, should still be introduced, but advertising should stress superior price performance, not corporate image.

5. Support distributors. In uncertain times, no one wants to tie up working capital in excess inventories. Early-buy allowances, extended financing, and generous return policies motivate distributors to stock your full product line. This is particularly true with unproven new products. Be careful about expanding distribution to lower-priced channels; doing so can jeopardize existing relationships and your brand image. However, now may be the time to drop your weaker distributors and upgrade your sales force by recruiting those sacked by other companies.

6. Adjust pricing tactics. Customers will be shopping around for the best deals. You do not necessarily have to cut list prices, but you may need to offer more temporary price promotions, reduce thresholds for quantity discounts, extend credit to long-standing customers, and price smaller pack sizes more aggressively.

7. Stress market share. In all but a few technology categories where growth prospects are strong, companies are in a battle for market share and, in some cases, survival. Knowing your cost structure can ensure that any cuts or consolidation initiatives will save the most money with minimum customer impact. Companies such as Wal-Mart and Southwest Airlines, with strong positions and the most productive cost structures in their industries, can expect to gain market share. Other companies with healthy balance sheets can do so by acquiring weak competitors.

8. Emphasize core values. Although most companies are making employees redundant, chief executives can cement the loyalty of those who remain by assuring employees that the company has survived difficult times before, maintaining quality rather than cutting corners, and servicing existing customers rather than trying to be all things to all people. CEOs must spend more time with customers and employees. Economic recession can elevate the importance of the finance director's balance sheet over the marketing manager's income statement. Managing working capital can easily dominate managing customer relationships. CEOs must counter this. Successful companies do not abandon their marketing strategies in a recession; they adapt them.

Let me add to his wise remarks my own thoughts:

The biggest changes in market share occur at economic turning points.

I don't have data to back up this claim, but I believe it. Consider two scenarios:

A firm decided to downsize the sales staff during the recession. The remaining sales people became order-takers, answering calls from repeat customers. They had little time for outbound calls, and when they did call on new prospects or former customers, they had little success. So they stopped trying.

At the same time, a competitor had some (probably young) sales people, too new or too stupid to realize that nobody buys in a recession. They made the sales calls. They followed up a month later. They stayed in touch with their prospects and former customers.

When the economy turned around, who do you think got the business?

The new New Deal

The House and the Senate have drafted a compromise stimulus bill totalling $789.5B, all but guaranteeing the largest economic rescue program since Roosevelt's New Deal. Obama hailed the "endeavor of enormous scope and scale," though it may turn out to be just a down payment on efforts to turn around the economy. The package, which exceeds the cost of the entire Iraq war since the 2003 invasion, will expand unemployment insurance, streamline health-care delivery, give Washington more control over local education spending and tilt federal assistance to the poor. Around 35% of the package is earmarked for tax cuts. Obama and Democratic leaders lowered their expectations for job creation to 3.5M from 4M. Both chambers could approve the compromise bill by the end of the week.

Cool tool: State by state economic indicators

CNN-Money has a cool interactive map showing economic indicators for the 50 states. It demonstrates some of the points I have made in earlier posts about the recessionary effects not being felt equally across the country.

Selling the news vs. reporting it?

Some selected excerpts from the Time Magazine Cover Story "Why We're So Gloomy":

"I haven't really been able to sort out exactly why there has been this degree of pessimism."
~Former President Bush

Well, why are Americans so gloomy, fearful and even panicked about the current economic slump?

In one of history's most painful paradoxes, U.S. consumers seem suddenly disillusioned with the American Dream of rising prosperity even as capitalism and democracy have consigned the Soviet Union to history's trash heap. Hard times are forcing some people to turn their back on the American Dream.

"Whining" hardly captures the extent of the gloom Americans feel as the current downturn enters its 14th month. The slump is the longest, if not the deepest, since the Great Depression. Traumatized by layoffs that have cost more than 1.2 million jobs during the slump, U.S. consumers have fallen into their deepest funk in years.

While some economists have described the current slump as a near depression, that phrase overstates the case if it is taken as a comparison with the period 1929-33, when the U.S. economy contracted by nearly a third. The D word becomes more valid, especially with a small d, when it is used to compare the growth rate of the 1930s, which averaged 0.5% a year, with the expected sluggishness of the next decade, which some economists predict will see an average growth rate of 2%.

"I'm worried if my kids can earn a decent living and buy a house," says Tony Lentini, vice president of public affairs for Mitchell Energy in Houston. "I wonder if this will be the first generation that didn't do better than their parents. There's a genuine feeling that the country has gotten way off track, and neither political party has any answers. Americans don't see any solutions."

The deeper tremors emanate from the kind of change that occurs only once every few decades. America is going through a historic transition from a heedless borrow-and-spend society to one that stresses savings and investment. When this recession is over, America will not simply go back to business as usual.

The underlying change in the way American consumers and business leaders think about saving and spending will make the recovery one of the slowest in history and the next decade one of lowered expectations. Many economists agree that the U.S. will face at least several years of very modest growth as consumers and companies work off the vast debt they assumed in the last decade.

The conditions that led to today's transition economy go back several decades. Americans have suffered a long-term stagnation of their earnings. The median income of U.S. families has virtually stood still since 1973, showing an annual gain of just 0.3% a year.

The recent debt binge took place on a colossal scale in every sector of the economy. Runaway federal deficits have more than tripled the national debt. Meanwhile, consumers increased their IOUs from $1.4 trillion to $3.7 trillion last year. And U.S. industry raised its debt from $1.4 trillion to $3.5 trillion over the same period. The reckless borrowing made a reckoning inevitable.

So far, though, no reprieve from layoffs is anywhere in sight. Economists say U.S. companies will shed more than 1 million jobs in fields ranging from banking to aerospace, a pace even faster than last year's. "It's become almost like a poker game to see who can cut the most," says employment analyst Lacey. "There's a kind of corporate frenzy."

GM's plans to close 25 plants and cut 74,000 jobs, or 19% of its work force, scarcely addresses such problems as why it takes the company up to a year longer than the Japanese to redesign its cars.

This was from the January 13, 1992 edition of Time Magazine, and the opening quote was from President George H.W. Bush, and the article was about the relatively mild 1990-1991 recession. Note: The text above was altered slightly so that the specific time period was not obvious. Notice the distinct similarities to the reporting about today's economy.

The July 1990 to March 1991 recession was one of the shortest in U.S. history (8 months according to the NBER) and relatively mild: the jobless rate averaged only 6.1% during the recession and reached a high of only 6.8% by the end of the recession (although it continued to rise after the recession ended, see chart above). I think there is a general consensus that the 1990-1991 was nowhere near as severe as the three previous recessions of the 1970s and 1980s, and it's a fact that the 1973-1975 and 1981-1982 recessions were twice as long (16 months) as the 1990-1991 recession. And yet, to continue making the point, here is what the media were reporting about the 1990-1991 recession:

"In 1991 the average American expressed more pessimism about the future than at any time since the Great Depression."

"There is no question but this is the worst economic time since the Great Depression.”

"Sluggish economic growth this year will cap the worst three-year period centered on a recession since the Great Depression."

"Forecasts for a weak recovery in 1992 suggest the period since 1990 will be the worst for the economy since the Great Depression."

“.....the worst plunge since the Great Depression.”

"The banking industry has plunged to its lowest point since the Great Depression."

"This is the most severe economic dislocation we've had since the 1930s. Few are immune."

"Mr. Barry, a past president of the Chamber of Commerce, said 50 For Sale signs are just the tip of the iceberg, since many bank foreclosures and repossessions do not carry signs. "It's not a recession, it's a depression," he said."

“….with the US economy locked in a recession and more people out of work since the Great Depression.”

"....the worst (retail) sales period on record since the Great Depression."

"This recession is hitting white-collar workers more heavily than any since the Great Depression of the 1930s."

Again, sound familiar? Links available here.
HT: Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution and Mark Perry at Carpe Diem.

Where will it all go?

Click to enlarge this chart that breaks down the proposed stimulus package.


Source: Senate Releases Second Portion of Bailout Fund
DAVID M. HERSZENHORN, NYT, January 15, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/us/politics/16stimulus.html

What kind of stimulus is needed right now?

Much attention has been placed in the media regarding President-elect Obama’s stimulus plan. The question of debate basically comes down to whether or not it is needed and, if so, what form of stimulus will work best?

Three criteria are crucial for evaluating fiscal stimulus packages. First, does the program target the weakness in the economy that caused the recession, or is it largely peripheral? Second, are the funds going to be spent in a timely fashion? Third, does the program fundamentally strengthen the economy going forward into the expansion phase? A look at the economy's current circumstances suggests that a large fiscal stimulus is needed, but a badly designed one will, in the words of an old song, merely leave America "another day older and deeper in debt."

The cause of the current recession is buried in the balance sheet of the private sector, particularly the financial sector and the household sector. The government and the Federal Reserve have begun a number of programs to fix the balance sheet of the financial sector, some more effective than others.

The main challenge facing the new administration and Congress is how to handle the inevitable efforts of Americans to fight the effects of the financial crisis by saving. It would be foolish to stop this adjustment with government policy both because any efforts to do so would fail and because the restoration of a healthier household balance sheet is essential to the long-term recovery of the economy. Instead, the government must focus on how to ameliorate the effects that the resulting reduction in household spending will have on the economy.

The household saving rate is likely to rise by roughly 7 percentage points, from roughly one-half of one percent of disposable income to between 7 and 8 percent. The majority of this adjustment is likely to occur well before the end of 2009, with some further modest increase thereafter. One estimate suggests a drop in consumer demand of roughly $500 billion in 2009 and a further drop of roughly half that figure in 2010. These frame the quantitative parameters for an appropriate fiscal stimulus.

The bulk of government spending programs that have been suggested involve transfers of federal resources to state and local governments. While any or all of these programs might qualify as meritorious in their own right, they collectively fail the tests of well targeted stimulus.

Note first that such spending programs do not directly address the household balance sheet problem. The history of such programs overwhelmingly suggests that states and localities will simply substitute federal funds for their own resources for the vast bulk of the money spent. As such, little net impact will be had on household balance sheets.

These programs also generally fail the test of timeliness. Consider the phrase "shovel ready" being used to describe many of these programs. By definition a shovel-ready project is one that state or local government has already spent a good deal of money developing and is likely to continue spending on. On the other hand, infrastructure projects that actually will produce net new spending are never shovel-ready. Most of the spending will end up occurring at the peak of the business cycle when it is not needed, not at the bottom.

By contrast, there are some ongoing federal spending programs that can be quickly ramped up during a recession. Most notable is defense procurement. There is wide agreement that we have run down our defense infrastructure substantially. Much of this can be remedied by simply increasing the pace of existing production programs. Think of it as "assembly line-ready" instead of shovel-ready. Defense spending also gets around the problem of federal dollars supplanting other spending, as only the federal government is involved.

The third test involves whether projects assist the economy in entering the expansion phase. In general, government spending programs divert resources from the private sector as it tries to expand. Some infrastructure projects genuinely assist the private sector by making it more efficient. One such project now being discussed is the creation of a national energy grid. This has been tried before, but failed to get through the legal roadblocks thrown in its path by environmental groups and private landowners. Thus, a project may be highly desirable, but not timely. It may be a good idea, but it is not stimulus.

The question to ask about any infrastructure project being sold as "stimulus" is why the project hasn't been done already. The most common answer is that the state and local political process didn't find that the benefits met the costs--a sure sign that the project is not likely to pay for itself during the expansion phase of the business cycle. Another test of the genuineness of the stimulus intent is whether the federal political process is willing to let go of its own political interests in an effort to maximize the stimulus effect. For example, will Congress waive the requirements that drive up costs and reduce the job creating benefits of infrastructure spending? Will they abandon earmarks alltogether? Not likely, IMHO.

The final argument made for federal funding of infrastructure spending by states is that it is needed to prevent or offset cuts that states will have to make in a weak economy. This argument essentially concedes the points made above, that such spending is really just a safety net for the public sector. It is at best job preserving, not job creating.

Permanent tax cuts offer a much better option. The incoming chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, has estimated that the macroeconomic benefits of tax cuts can be two to three times larger than common estimates of the benefits related to spending increases. The relative advantage of tax cuts over spending is even clearer when the recession is centered on the household balance sheet. Some relatively minor changes, like making the current 15 percent tax rate on dividends and capital gains permanent, would not only help household cash flow, but also put a floor under equity prices much as their introduction did in 2003. This would help protect against further wealth destruction and balance sheet deterioration.

But the centerpiece of any tax cut should be employment taxes: in particular, a permanent halving of the current 12.4 percent Social Security payroll tax on the first $106,800 of wages, split evenly between workers and employers. The direct revenue effect of that would be a bit under $400 billion per year, roughly in line with the present quantitative needs of the economy.

It also meets our three tests of effective stimulus. First, the funds would flow directly to households through higher take-home pay and indirectly through a reduction in the cost of employment. Economic studies conclude that the benefits of a reduction in the employer portion of the payroll tax are ultimately received by employees. But the immediate effect would be an improvement in the cash flow of credit-starved businesses (as well as being a marginal incentive to keep employment up).

Second, the funds would be extremely timely; with the benefits hitting the economy with the first paycheck after the plan was implemented. Third, by lowering the taxation of labor, the plan would help produce a higher-employment recovery than would otherwise be the case.

HT: Larry Lindsey