Green Room

In which Robert Reich and Tim Geithner red-line my BS meter

posted at 5:04 pm on August 3, 2010 by

I won’t assume Tim Geithner and Robert Reich coordinated their pieces this morning, but both are of a piece with the latest meme on economic policy from the Administration’s supporters.  This goes either “it could have been worse” or “you don’t know how bad it would have been.”  Twittered to me by “ParisParamus” last night, here’s Reich:

Consider the stimulus package. Although it’s difficult to separate the consequences of fiscal and monetary policy, most knowledgeable observers conclude that the stimulus has had a positive effect. Real GDP is now increasing at an annual rate of 2.4%, and although the recovery is still fragile it’s unlikely we’ll fall back into a full-fledged recession.

“Difficult to separate”?? The reason it’s difficult is that you need a model of how the economy works to do that. Blinder and Zandi tried that last week. If you have a different model, you get a very different answer. John Taylor, at least, does not agree with how that study was done.  We simply don’t know if it had a positive effect.  I make the probability of “zero or negative” effect less than 50%, but the range of my estimates is very broad, imprecise, uncertain.  I think I qualify as a “knowledgeable observer” when I say “I don’t know that the stimulus has had a positive effect.”

Reich again:

In fairness, no one knew how sick the economy was in February 2009 when Congress approved the initial stimulus. Yet by late spring 2009 the White House knew the extent of the damage and should have pushed much harder for significantly more spending. Almost a third of the initial stimulus, moreover, came in the form of temporary tax cuts, which already had been proven relatively ineffective at spurring demand after President Bush tried them in 2008. And many states were engaging in reverse stimulus policies, slashing spending and increasing taxes. The administration knew its stimulus was not nearly up to the job.

Anyone reading my Twitter feed last night should know this is the paragraph where I popped a gasket. Where to begin?

  1. There was at the time and remains to this day a great deal of uncertainty about “how sick the economy was in February 2009.”  The Administration said repeatedly in February 2009 that they were comfortable with the size of the stimulus package; Brad DeLong was saying in June they thought the stimulus should have been 2.5 times the size it was.  But the Administration had bought their own estimate of potential GDP and the size of the gap they had to close.  (See also this from Michael Kiley.)
  2. On July 12, 2009, Geithner was quoted on CNN saying “I think all economists believe, and this was inherent in the design of the program, that the biggest thrust or force would start to take effect in the second half of this year. And we’re going to start to see that happen. But I don’t think that’s a judgment we need to make now, can’t really make it now prudently, responsibly.”  It did not know “its stimulus was not nearly up to the job.”  It thought in summer that indeed it WAS up to the job.  
  3. There is no one model, or even one measure of potential GDP.  Truth is, we’re all over the place.  At no point does Reich show any understanding of that which he asserts so glibly.  I am utterly astounded by how thoughtlessly he asserts these things.  
  4. As to those ineffective tax cuts, The Administration’s CEA reported that they estimate those silly tax cuts contributed 1.7% of GDP gap closing and 1.4 million jobs “saved or created.” Even Romer’s own academic paper shows an effect of tax changes on GDP.  (Relatedly, I have yet to watch Robert Barro’s AEI speech, but the slides look worth reading.)

Geithner, meanwhile, plays this little trick:

The new data show that this recession was even deeper than previously estimated. The plunge in economic activity started an entire year before President Obama took office and was accelerating at the end of 2008, when G.D.P. fell at an annual rate of roughly 7 percent.

There was none of this concern about re-estimated GDP in 2009 when setting the size of the stimulus. We knew the start of the recession was December 2007 on December 1, 2008, six weeks before the Romer-Bernstein memo.  The GDP figure at end of 2008 was $75 billion less than had been estimated.  Given your administration’s estimate of a multiplier of 1.56, that implies your stimulus package was short by about $48 billion.  Most of the downward revision was in 2009, meaning your policies were even less effective than previously thought.

Panicked by the collapse in demand and financing and fearing a prolonged slump, the private sector cut payrolls and investment savagely. The rate of job loss worsened with time: by early last year, 750,000 jobs vanished every month. The economic collapse drove tax revenue down, pushing the annual deficit up to $1.3 trillion by last January.

So the passage of stimulus in February 2009 did not stop the panic. Glad to have that on record. As to the # jobs vanishing, this 750,000 is a measure of the peak, true for two months (ok, we’ll give you three, though February 2009 was actually 726,000. Close enough for government work.) As to “the economic collapse drove tax revenues down”, the state of the economy is removed from the cyclically adjusted budget deficit by CBO, and that was 7.5% in 2009, 6.5% in 2010.  Their estimate shows that even if we were at full employment, the budget deficit would still be $1,018 billion.

Do they even bother to read their own government reports? 

Recently in the Green Room:



Trackback URL


Do they even bother to read their own government reports?

Probably not. I consider it most likely they don’t even know they exist.


mr.blacksheep on August 3, 2010 at 5:35 PM

Outstanding dissection, King!!! We’d be better off with you advising President Obama than with Geithner.

I wrote about Geithner’s op-ed here.

LFRGary on August 3, 2010 at 5:51 PM

Real GDP is now increasing at an annual rate of 2.4%,

And how much of that 2.4% is due to the growth of government?

Listen you twits, speaking as a taxpayer (a concept that is alien to Turbo Timmy) growing the government is not my idea of growing the economy!

PackerBronco on August 3, 2010 at 6:53 PM

PackerBronco on August 3, 2010 at 6:53 PM

Exactly. Calling an increase in government spending an increase in GDP is a lot like saying there are fewer flies outside because you opened the door and let some of them move inside. It’s an artificial recharacterization of the original situation; with the added “benefit” that you’ve made things worse, from interrelated — and important — perspectives. In the fly situation, you’ve now got flies inside to deal with. In the government spending situation, you’ve now got national debt, currency inflation, and the opportunity cost imposed by arbitrarily usurping resources to look foerward to.


J.E. Dyer on August 3, 2010 at 7:26 PM

Sure they read their own reports. But like any good politician, their comments have no bass in reality.

Snidely Whiplash on August 3, 2010 at 7:50 PM

Sure they read their own reports. But like any good politician, their comments have no bass in reality.

Snidely Whiplash on August 3, 2010 at 7:50 PM

Snidely, have to disagree with you on this one. Politicians don’t even read the laws they vote on, much less the reports that are generated by millions of bureaucrats. Admin officials are no different than their political appointers. Although having some minimal educational background in some field that somehow relates to their official title, their real calling in life is politics or they wouldn’t be in DC. They’d be anywhere else on the planet complaining about politicians.

Robert17 on August 3, 2010 at 9:02 PM

In which Robert Reich and Tim Geithner red-line my BS meter

Best. Title. Evah.

Laura in Maryland on August 3, 2010 at 10:32 PM

If anyone doesn’t know, King Banaian has a great econ-oriented show on KYCR saturday mornings; the sister station to WWTC, which airs Ed Morrissey’s show. Its great radio, and great serious but fun economics–would have loved to have that in college.

ParisParamus on August 4, 2010 at 1:18 AM

I wish all newly elected federal officials had to pass a basic economics test before they are allowed to vote on any financial bills.

The test would be written by Walter Williams.

GnuBreed on August 4, 2010 at 5:23 AM

This post has been promoted to

Comments have been closed on this post but the discussion continues here.

Ed Morrissey on August 4, 2010 at 11:58 AM

HotAir — Politics, Culture, Media, 2017, Breaking News from a conservative viewpoint

McConnell may not get his wish on health care vote

Taylor Millard Jun 25, 2017 7:31 PM
Top Pick

Senate leadership wants a vote this week, others say, “Negative, Ghost Rider.”

Top Pick

Helping others without the government.

“…the reality is the reality.”

These kiosks don’t make $15 per hour or need benefits

Going for the record

“We will answer them on the field”

Taking it to the limit

Sunday morning talking heads

Jazz Shaw Jun 25, 2017 8:01 AM

Health care and tweeting and Russia, oh my!

Will they stay or will they go?

I can’t imagine what I was thinking when I said that

Rocking the boat majorly

Big government never contracts. It only grows more powerful

It’s only a “ban” until it becomes inconvenient

The decline and fall of Obamacare and the AHCA

Jazz Shaw Jun 24, 2017 8:31 AM

This was all over before it began

Fixing crime in America is a complicated issue

Taylor Millard Jun 23, 2017 8:31 PM

Cops alone won’t solve it.

Victim’s father was President Maduro’s supervisor back when he was a bus driver.

Democrats forgot all about the “era of good feelings”

“Bernie and Jane Sanders have lawyered up.”

“the Judiciary Committee is examining the circumstances surrounding the removal of James Comey.”

Winning isn’t everything. It is the only thing

Trump signs VA reform bill into law

John Sexton Jun 23, 2017 2:41 PM

“What happened was a national disgrace, and yet some of the employees involved in these scandals remained on the payrolls.”

A new era of something.

“…died suddenly in less than a week just after his return to the U.S.”

The shortsightedness of “Denounce and Preserve”

Taylor Millard Jun 23, 2017 12:11 PM

Pragmatism for the sake of pragmatism doesn’t always work.

Perhaps if you threw in a new car?

Gay marriages still growing, but not as fast

Andrew Malcolm Jun 23, 2017 10:31 AM

More, but not as quickly.

Should’ve stuck with the pirate gig. It was working for him

The battle for the rubble of Raqqa is underway

Andrew Malcolm Jun 23, 2017 8:51 AM

Won’t be much left.

Your list of demands is a publicity stunt

“what happened that day was emblematic of a deeply troubling trend among progressives…”

“The jobs are still leaving. Nothing has stopped.”

Bad vendor. Bad! No cookie!

“The Corps is just starting to grapple with the issues the court has identified.”

“So you want me to sing my praises, is that what you’re saying?”

Why would we possibly want that?

“I mean he sold our country to The Russians.”

I could think of someone else you might want to ask about…