The in-the-know types in Washington keep assuring the little people that there’s some secret negotiations on walking back from the budget standoff in Washington, avoiding a government shutdown. Pardon me if I don’t see it happening. It’s true that Republicans are working on a stopgap continuing resolution that would last two weeks, not four like the Democrats want, and would include $10 billion in cuts, unlike the Democratic plan which keeps things at current levels in the short-term. But that leaves the two sides $10 billion apart, with a little over a week to go. Senate Republicans plan to offer this measure as a substitute amendment to the Democrats’ stopgap, but that’s just to draw votes and rail against moderates for “voting against spending cuts.” Absolutely nothing here makes me believe that the continuing resolution won’t run out. I see a lot of posturing but no solution. And to be clear, we’re now talking about $10 billion dollars, in a budget of over $3 trillion, leading to a debilitating shutdown.
Into this environment comes something Sen. Chuck Schumer highlighted today – an analysis from Goldman Sachs showing that the House spending cut plan would significantly inhibit economic growth.
A confidential new report prepared by Goldman Sachs for its clients says spending cuts passed by the House of Representatives last week would be a drag on the economy, cutting economic growth by about two percent of GDP.
“Under the House passed spending bill [which cut spending by $61 billion],” says the report, which was obtained by ABC News, “the drag on GDP growth from federal fiscal policy would increase by 1.5pp to 2pp in Q2 and Q3 compared with current law.”
The report, which is signed by Goldman economist Alec Phillips, goes on to predict that the House-passed bill is unlikely to become law because it won’t pass the Senate and, in any case, the president threatened to veto it.
More likely, the report says, is a deal to cut spending by $25 billion this year, followed by a cut of $50 billion next year.
Even those more modest spending cuts, Goldman Sachs predicts, will cut economic growth rates by one percent of GDP.
The entire GS report is at the link. I know it’s the vampire squid, but their economic reports are actually usually decent. Incidentally, they also note that a shutdown itself would reduce federal spending by about $8 billion a week, and would reduce GDP growth by up to 0.8%. In other words, Republicans get what they want with spending cuts simply by doing nothing. And what they want actually harms the economy to a significant degree, with no real benefit.
Schumer is right to highlight this – the House CR would be a significant drag on growth. He told the Financial Times that “This nonpartisan study proves that the House Republicans’ proposal is a recipe for a double-dip recession. Just as the economy is beginning to pick up a little steam, the Republican budget would snuff out any chance of recovery.” But in the same breath, Schumer says we need to reduce the deficit, only in the “right” way, by “striking the right balance between cutting spending and growing the economy.”
That’s just ridiculous. Federal spending cuts would reduce aggregate demand. That’s the whole point. I wouldn’t deny that some cuts would wind up better than others, but that’s really marginal at this point. The economy is really not ready for spending cuts of any kind. And yet Schumer’s been running around saying “We all agree there must be cuts” for the last several weeks. The fact that the Goldman Sachs analysis says that their expected scenario of $25 billion in cuts this year and $50 billion next year would shave a point off of growth kind of proves this.
A new study of the stimulus package shows it worked better than expected. That’s because we know how to deal with a demand problem – provide demand through federal spending to boost economic growth. That’s pretty much economics 101, and you won’t find “cut and invest” anywhere in that textbook.
This is hugely important for macro policy debates because it suggests that more stimulus would provide a further boost to the economy and reduction in unemployment. This means that the only reason that we are sitting here with 25 million people unemployed and underemployed is that the politicians in Washington are too intimidated by the Wall Street deficit hawks.
The deficit hawks have used their enormous political power and control over the media to shut down any further discussion of stimulus. They have managed to completely dominate public debate with their brand of flat-earth economics. They are using the crisis that was created through their greed and incompetence to reduce hugely valued public benefits, like Social Security and Medicare. And, now they are using the crisis that they have created for state and local governments to destroy public sector unions.
This looks really awful because it is. Our nations’ leaders are deliberately inflicting enormous pain on tens of millions of people to advance their political agenda. This new study helps to prove this fact.
Maybe Chuck Schumer should read that analysis more closely and take its advice.




25 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
but but but wouldn’t the magical free market fairy step in and wage her magic wand and fix the economy.
(tongue firmly in chhek)
Well, yes, I note you stated, to paraphrase, that this is after all Goldman-Sachs, yet their economic forecasts have usually been accurate.
Personally, I’m a bit more cynical than that. I would like to know what is in it for the banksters, something no doubt.
Not to say I favor the repubs shutting things down, just wondering what part of the shutdown cuts off the gravy for GS.
When Pete Sessions said that the Republicans were going to use Taliban-like tactics to oppose Obama, he was serious. Too bad he got a free pass from the media.
Having been a Chief U.S. economist on Wall St., I can’t assure you that it has NO politicization,* but that it is one of the least politicized positions there. You might want to use GS forecast of a year ago to judge the validity of their analysis of this matter. Hatzius actually forecast a higher unemployment rate for 2010 (11% peak) than that which actually occurred (9.8%)** but came close on real GDP growth.
OTOH Bill Dudley, now head of NY FRB couldn’t have gotten there without sucking up when he was Chief U.S. economist at GS. So I can’t say there’s no poison in the waters.
On balance, I’d take Hatzius’s analysis as reasonable, FWIW.
*Forecast & analysis of U.S. economy has no direct bearing on biz of Wall St. firm, which is what gives it some independence. I used to refer to my job as the lowest-paid Wall St. job, but the most intellectually interesting for precisely that combination. Lowest prof pay on Wall St. still ain’t bad.
**Owing to shrinkage of the labor force I think.
The GDP recession decrease 2008-2009 was 2.7% (14.369 to 14.119) and I’m to believe that a $61B government spending cut (1.9% of US govt spending, not even 1/2% GDP) would produce nearly the same result?
Oh, wait a minute, the headline is wrong. It would decrease GDP growth, not GDP. That’s better.
David,
This post is very important as an overlying issue to the attack on collective bargaining as well.
Good catch.
MODS: Plz contact dday & get him to correct headline. Here’s the money quote from Schumer which dday misrepresented in his headline:
donbacon: I was so intent on putting the analysis into perspective that I didn’t read the headline correctly.
AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen David Dayen:
Thanks again…may I have another! It seems to me as one who is retired on Social Security, a small anuity and my wife a teacher at 32 years and top of the scale (in Wisconsin no less), it seems to me that the suffering that all these corporate shills are intending to bring down on us all is a gamble by two competing factions of our oligarchy and that the political consequences may be far greater for BOTH than either can imagine.
I simply think that there is a huge battle right now between the banksters and the oilagarchs, not unlike the split in 1858 between the Northern money and the Southern slaveocracy. The fight which ended in civil war and the entrance of industrial capitalism and black gold dollars ended one obsolete economic system and jump started a new one and the rulers of the new economy coopted the political ideology of the old system and instituted a colonial economic pressure valve in the South with the old salvocracy as resident overseers.
I think we are seein the end of industrial and oil capitalism and within 25 years the corporate economy could be extinct. Somethin is happening in the colonial territories that goes far beyond the dryin up of oil reserves, and it is excelerating the political dislocation in the motherland as the corporate security state retrenches within its own borders.
There is something I have felt since my first visit to Madison, and I have seen it everyday here in my little town, in my wife’s political consciousness, in my children’s political experience as teachers in Minnesota and in my daughter’s synthesis of what she is learning in graduate studies and her work with working class folks in North Dakota. This is not gunna be easy but the old bosses are as powerless as we used to be to control what’s comin’ down.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, AND FOR GOD’S SAKE DON’T SHOOT THE FRIENDLIES!!
Funny we are going to start trusting Goldman when it suits our cause….Not hypocritical at all….Calling them scumbags and crooks while praising their work out the other side of our mouths,
Nice teamwork! :)
As you remember, I recalled your Chief Econ days from back when I worked for Mellon. Why I remember is about the bubble talk at the time, as I was working in their appraisal department.
What we couldn’t do at the time was ignore arms-length transactions with bidding wars in front yards of subject properties, but we were very wary about the increasing value rate, compared to the rest of the economy. My boss, the Chief Appraiser for Mellon Mortgage and I discussed your forecast and Hoey’s outlook the year of Mellon’s sale (1999)
What ultimately saved us is that Chase bought the portfolio and terminated our valuation services. I went to Mexico for a week. LOL!
And they don’t mind more government spending — especially since they benefit from it.
A trip in the Wayback Machine.
All I remember from the dot-com bubble is that I could convince no one who would admit it that it was a bubble.
I have several titles of reports I wrote that I am inordinately proud of. One of which is for the ‘millennium’ gigantic volume (to last thru the annals of time) in mid-1999. Michael Mauboussin, one of the biggest horses’s asses at CSFB at the time, and the fair-haired boy, was one of the biggest promoters of the “NEW ECONOMY,” a suck-up to Bill Miller of Legg Mason, who subsequently self-destructed. So my report in this volume was titled: There’s Nothing New About the New Economy. When it came to the Monday morning research meeting when I, a mere aging woman, had to present my work, knowing it to some extent mocked Mauboussin’s work, spoke in a very soft voice. At the end of my 5-min summary, the first Q I got was: What is the title of your report. I changed tactics and came out with the title full-throated. No avoiding it at that point.
Not that I could convince anyone that dot-com was a bubble, regardless of whether I spoke softly or harshly.
Fair enough. Even when Wall St. isn’t the direct beneficiary, they are indirect beneficiaries from stronger growth owing to stimulative econ policy.
Set against their personal benefit from welfare tax cuts directed toward them
Oy what a choice: No ‘death’ taxes, lower income taxes than my secretary, OR lower govt spending that might reduce econ growth & thus reduce stock market (or commodity bubble returns). Geez, not sure to choose Door A or Door B.
Guess I’ll choose both.
“…I see a lot of posturing but no solution…”
(ahem) no solution that anyone seems prepared to discuss yet, anyway…
You don’t quite get it do you.
There’s no “praise” here. In this case GS is making a factual representation, to enable it to get what it wants.
When they want to socialize the losses, instead of taking the losses themselves, as I do believe your philosophy says they should, they will make another pitch which should be, and previously has roundly condemned here.
From the inside of the dot-com bubble…I was in California and Sweden during the crazy years of that bubble, dreaming up products and answering telecom bids for crazy ideas…and competing with other equipment and software suppliers who, from the hallucinogenic product descriptions, were clearly tripping on some vintage Owsley acid.
Anyway, I would look at our competition’s product descriptions and feature sets and ask “have they really got these?” and of course the answer was no.
I would look at the bid requirements (for things like ability to supply maps and menus for local pizza restaurants through GSM handsets) and ask, “does anybody want this?” with the answer, well, not really, no.
And so it went. I felt like the grouchy old guy in Stockholm, walking around going “ten years, minimum, before the infrastructure and handset technology allow anything like this” and “there’s no reality behind these projections–don’t drink the kool-aid!”
But no, everyone jumped into the deep end, no life preserver, no strategy other than get in before the next guy. We finally went from 105,000 employees to 45,000 in less than 18 months in 2001-2002. Ouch. And, along with everyone else, took down a considerable portion of the industry with us.
Now of course we’ve got our iphones and apps and life is wondrous. But it took ten years and a crashed bubble to get here. Think we’ll learn? Nah.
You might want to reread my 4 and 13, think about them again, and then reconsider your comment.
Nice stories.
The difference bet you & me is not in the evaluation we made of the outcome but in the honing in on the analysis of the process & the manner of thinking about it.
I, as did you, knew, for a certainty that it was a bubble. But rather than condemn those who were caught up in it as fools and jerks, I was much more interested in why I could not convince them that it was a bubble, why it lasted so long, got so much bigger than I ever expected, etc.
IOW, my interests in the bubble were intellectual. Not that I got even close to figuring it out, but it was a fascinating time.
Thanks to George W Bush, there is an alternative to a bad continuing resolution or a shutdown. Directive 51, which could be triggered by “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.” Not passing a CR, or not raising the debt limit, could easily qualify – especially if it interfered with the ability of the Treasury to redeem T-bills as they became due.
I’m not saying anyone in the administration should advocate invoking Directive 51, but the possibility should scare the crap out of the GOP and make them think thrice about their economic bomb throwing.
Now, effectuating that, or even threatening it, would require that Ds not be in Rs’ back pocket, wouldn’t it? *g*
Firstly it would be wise to stop calling the words spoken or written by anyone in a corporation to be that corporations words. This was not Goldman Sach’s analysis it was the analysis of one employee. GS or GM or GE or any other company doesn’t say anything. People say things corporations don’t talk.
Secondly any word of advice offered by a trading firm are just as likely meant to be aimed at encouraging the public to take positions exactly the opposite of the firm.
Thirdly these numbers for the hit to GDP from a mere 3% cut in spending are A. either far too high, or B. show how incredibly vulnerable the economy is to total disaster. A 3% cut in spending would be .3% of GDP. If a .3% drop in total demand will cause a 1% drop in GDP then I suggest you start stocking up the basement.
In fact I do think you should stock up the basement, at least a bit.
As I typed in 17, you might want to review the comments for context.
To put your comment in a corp context, virtually everything a securities analyst wrote in my experience while I was employed as an economist on Wall St. was a reflection of management’s position. Securities analysts didn’t even have to be instructed to do so. After all, they’d all graduated from kindergarten and knew which way the wind was blowing (or which side their bread was buttered, or choose your cliche).
U.S. economist was a diff position, as I tried to explain. Ask Qs if I was unclear.
Economists who covered other countries not so much. I remember one episode when our economist covering Canada opined on a political event (can’t recall the exact context right now but might remember it in a couple of minutes if you hang on) that would influence Canadian economic outlook, thus the interest rate on Canadian securities, thus the HydroQuebec issue that our firm was working on, was highly chastised within the firm for being quoted in the Canadian press.
So it is not hypocrisy, but context. Think dday got this one right.
Challenges welcome if you disagree.
Merembering a little bit. The Canadian political event was about some unification or binationalism event that involved French Canadians, approx 1990s. IIRC, our econ analyst’s evaluation was closer to what actually happened, i.e. political reconciliation was not so seamless, Canadian bond yields rose & the Hydroquebec deal did not go as well as our corp fin would have wished.
Or at a minimum evincing the presence of a spine.
No more hypocritical than praising the WSJ’s factual reporting while blasting their op-ed pages.
It’s called discernment.