I noted recently that economist cannot agree on the good, bad or ugliness of the medium to long term impact of near-zero interest rates or quantitive easing (QE). This suggests that economics is in a sad state of affairs. Even the Republican tax deal, winding its way through reconciliation this week, continues to create fervent grounds for disagreement. The most important sticking point concerns the rate of growth the tax changes might lead to. This is critical since it is the resulting change in GDP what will spin off excess profits and therefore taxes that will go to pay for the tax breaks. If GDP does not grow fast enough, insufficient funds will be created. If GDP excels, al will be well and the Democrats won’t be happy since they may lose the next general election.
In the Wall Street Journal on December 2-3 there was an interesting opinion piece by Phil Gramm and Michal Colon titled, Don’t Be Fooled by Secular Stagnation. Mr. Gramm is former chairman of the senate banking committee and now with the American Enterprise Institute. Mr Solon works for US Policy Metrics. The article compares America’s GDP averages over recent history and the assumptions that the Republicans are making with their forecasts. The two are not that far apart at all, yet other reports from different perspectives, using different assumptions, suggest growth will not reach its goals. The COB suggests growth might make 1.9% over 10 years; the Republican’s are looking for 2.6%. It turns out that since the end of WWII to 2008, America has averaged about 3.4% and this includes 10 recessions!
Then, when you get under the hood of the various models economist use you find the strangest of assumptions. The CBO’s model does not allow for any spin off of profits generated from growth to be plowed back into the economy to drive more growth. This the model is quite limited. Why don’t our economists or civil servants update their modes? Because it would be more political than economic. The CBO, as the article suggests, has been worn more times than it has been right with its GDP forecasts in the last 20 years. We might as well just ignore them and set up a new government department. At least that adds to employment which I am sure is irrefutable.