Month: August 2009

2009 Budget Deficit: $1.58 Trillion

Next Tuesday is a big day for budget watchers. The Congressional Budget Office will release its updated budget and economic projections in the morning, and the Office of Management and Budget will release its projections later in the day.

CBO isn’t a fan of leaks, so we probably won’t know much about its updated projections until Tuesday. The Obama administration, on the other hand, will likely allow select tidbits out early, as have previous administrations.

Indeed, Bloomberg is already reporting that an administration official told them that this year’s deficit will come in at “$1.58 trillion, about $262 billion less than forecast in May.”

There are several things you should know about this estimate:

  • The $262 billion difference is largely explained by a single factor: no TARP II. The administration’s original budget included a $250 billion placeholder for additional financial stabilization efforts. Happily, that never happened.
  • A second big factor, as reported by Bloomberg, is that spending on bank failures has come in $78 billion lower than originally forecast.
  • That good news is partly offset by the fact that tax revenues are projected to be about $83 billion less than originally forecast (presumably because of the weak economy). All other spending is forecast to be about $17 billion less than originally projected.

In short, the cost of fighting the financial crisis has been much lower than forecast in May, while the rest of the budget has done slightly worse than forecast.

This being Washington, there will be some debate about whether the $1.84 trillion figure from May is the right benchmark for evaluating whether the deficit is lower than forecast. That figure (the “policy deficit”) reflected not only the administration’s expectations about how the economy was affecting the budget, but also the budget impacts of its policy proposals, including the potential TARP II. At the time, the administration also made a second forecast that did not include any policy changes. That “baseline deficit” was $1.62 trillion, almost identical to the new estimate. Folks who use the baseline as a benchmark will thus conclude that the deficit is essentially in line with earlier expectations.

Note: The estimates of this year’s budget deficit will get lots of press (and blog) attention, but they are by no means the most important information in the new projections. The real question is what 2010, 2011, and subsequent years look like. We know the deficits will be scary-looking, but we will have to wait until Tuesday to find out just how scary.

Step Two of a Housing Bottom?

Yesterday’s report on residential construction provided more evidence that step one of a housing bottom is underway — and that step two may be beginning.

Total housing starts fell slightly in July because of weakness in multi-family. But starts of single-family homes increased to 490 thousand (at an annual rate), the fifth straight monthly increase and the highest level since last October.

Housing Starts (July 09)

As the chart shows, this rebound is off of extremely low levels, so we shouldn’t get too excited. But it does appear that single-family starts bottomed last January and February (at 357 thousand).

That’s the first step of a housing bottom.

As I’ve noted in previous posts, however, that isn’t enough to declare a bottom in housing activity. Housing activity depends on the number of houses under construction, which depends on both housing starts and housing completions. Completions have exceeded starts for more than three years. As a result, the number of houses under construction has fallen for 41 straight months.

For me, the big news in the July data is that this decline may be ending.

Continue reading “Step Two of a Housing Bottom?”

The Charming World of Las Vegas Real Estate

Over at Time Magazine, Joel Stein has an amusing / troubling article (“Less Vegas: The Casino Town Bets on a Comeback“) about the perils of Las Vegas real estate (ht Anne Canfield).

The juiciest part of the article recounts how real estate agent Brooke Boemio advises clients to exploit the realities of the collapsed housing market:

Boemio specializes in short selling, in a particularly Vegas way. Basically, she finds clients who owe more on their house than the house is worth (and that’s about 60% of homeowners in Las Vegas) and sells them a new house similar to the one they’ve been living in at half the price they paid for their old house. Then she tells them to stop paying the mortgage on their old place until the bank becomes so fed up that it’s willing to let the owner sell the house at a huge loss rather than dragging everyone through foreclosure. Since that takes about nine months, many of the owners even rent out their old house in the interim, pocketing a profit.

In short, homo economicus is again stalking the Vegas housing market.

Stein notes that the renters often suffer from this ploy, since they can be evicted when a foreclosed property finally changes hands. In a nice illustration of how markets work, he then describes how renters are adjusting to this reality:

People are now paying a premium to live [i.e., rent] in apartment buildings, which in Vegas are almost always owned by a corporation.

Klein’s story has lots of other fun anecdotes from the front line of real estate crisis, including this immortal line from casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, whose wealth has reportedly declined by more than $35 billion:

A billion dollars doesn’t buy what it used to. So it’s not as tragic as one would assume.”

The 50 Most Important Economic Theories

Be sure to read the follow-up post in July 2010

What are the 50 most important economic theories of the last century? That’s the question a publisher recently asked me to ponder for a book they are developing.

I’ve noodled on this over the past week and have some initial ideas. But I would be remiss if I didn’t solicit suggestions from my insightful readers.

So, what do you think have been the most important economic theories over the past century?

To spark your thinking, here are some very preliminary ideas, albeit without much respect for the publisher’s century limitation. (Apologies for the higher-than-usual amount of jargon and economic short-hand.)

Continue reading “The 50 Most Important Economic Theories”

Tracking the Stimulus

In her recent speech about the impact of the stimulus effort, Christina Romer, Chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, noted that “as of the end of June, more than $100 billion had been spent.”

If you visit the government web site tracking the stimulus (Recovery.gov), however, it will tell you that the government had paid out only about $60 billion by July 3. (You can find this figure in the chart at the lower right hand corner of the home page.)

Why does Christi report a figure so much larger than the one reported on the official website? Because Recovery.gov isn’t tracking all of the budget effects of the stimulus.

Christi’s figure includes the $60 billion of spending reported on Recovery.gov plus an internal estimate, prepared by Treasury, of the tax reductions resulting from the stimulus effort through June 24. Those tax reductions are obviously a big deal, totaling $40 billion or slightly more through the end of June.

Based on conversations with friends and journalists, I get the sense that some users of Recovery.gov do not realize that its figures cover only the spending side of the stimulus story, not the tax side.

As a result, I think Recovery.gov is (unintentionally) confusing people into thinking that the stimulus effort to date is smaller than it has actually been.

I have two suggestions for how to fix this:

Step 1: Reduce Confusion: Recovery.gov should slap a warning label on the home page chart (and everywhere else it reports aggregate figures) that says something like: “These figures reflect only the new Federal spending that has resulted from the recovery act. The act also included significant tax reductions that aren’t reflected here.” 

Step 2: Provide the Information: Of course, it would be even better if Treasury would release official estimates of the week-by-week or month-by-month tax reductions flowing from the recovery act. These figures would obviously be estimates — and thus not able to be audited to the same degree as the spending programs — but would be invaluable to analysts trying to track the impact of the stimulus effort.

P.S. As I noted last week, the Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the total budget impact of the stimulus effort reached about $125 billion through the end of July.

Google Is Still Wrong About Unemployment

Everyone who follows the U.S. economy closely knows that the unemployment rate was 9.4% in July, down 0.1% from June.

Everyone, that is, except Google.

If you ask Google (by searching for “unemployment rate United States“), it will tell you the unemployment rate in July was 9.7%.

What’s going on? Well, it turns out that Google is directing users to the wrong data series. As I discussed last month, almost everyone who talks about unemployment is using (whether they know it or not) data that have been adjusted to remove known seasonal patterns in hiring and layoffs (e.g., many school teachers become unemployed in June and reemployed in August or September). Adjusting for such seasonal patterns is standard protocol because it makes it easier for data users to extract signals from the noisy movements in data over time.

For unknown reasons, Google has chosen not to direct users to these data. Instead, Google reports data that haven’t been seasonally adjusted and thus do not match what most of the world is using.

This is troubling, since I have high hopes for Google’s vision of bringing the power of search to data sets. The ability of users to find and access data lags far behind their ability to find and access text. I am hopeful that Google will solve part of this problem.

But data search is not about mindlessly pointing users to data series. You need to make sure that users get directed to the right data series. So far, Google is failing on that front, at least with unemployment data.

 P.S. As I discussed in a follow-up post last month, Wofram Alpha has an even more ambitious vision for making data — and computation — available through search. I like many of the things Alpha is trying to do, but they are lagging behind Google in several ways. For example, as I write this, they haven’t updated the unemployment data yet to reflect the new July data. (Click here for Alpha results.)

Bing isn’t trying yet.

Latest Data on Transfers and Income

In a series of posts (most recent here), I’ve documented that Americans are getting an increasing portion of their income from the government.

BEA released new data on incomes a couple weeks ago, including revisions back to 1995. These data reinforce the story I’ve described in my previous posts:

  • Transfers accounted for 17.3% of personal income in June. That’s the second highest in history, topped only by the 18.2% recorded in May, when transfers were boosted by one-time payments from this year’s stimulus act:

Transfers June 2009

  • The increasing importance of transfers reflects both short-run developments and long-run trends. In the past year, the importance of transfers has grown because of (a) weakness in other forms of income, (b) the natural expansion of transfers due to economic weakness (e.g., increases in unemployment insurance payments), and (c) policies to expand benefits (e.g., as an attempt at stimulus). Over the longer run, however, the growth of transfers has been driven by the expansion of entitlement programs.

Continue reading “Latest Data on Transfers and Income”

Inflation, Bank Reserves, and Lending

The Business News Network in Canada interviewed me last week about the gigantic amount of excess reserves being held by U.S. banks.

Here’s a link to the video of the interview. (We had a small technical glitch at the start, but then got rolling.)

Going into the interview, I was focused on the following talking points:

  • Total bank reserves have skyrocketed over the past year, from roughly $50 billion to roughly $850 billion.
  • When we studied economics in school, we were usually taught that a big increase in reserves would eventually translate into big inflation.
  • However, that’s not true today, for two reasons: (1) short-term interest rates are effectively zero, and (2) the Fed can now pay interest on reserves. Those facts weaken / break the traditional link between reserves and inflationary pressures.
  • Some have wondered whether the excess reserves mean that banks are hoarding, rather than lending.
  • That’s not true either. Instead, the high level of reserves simply reflects the fact that the Fed has been a busy beaver, expanding its balance sheet by making loans and buying securities (i.e., credit easing). Banks might be hoarding or they might not; excess reserves don’t shed any light on the question.
  • Viewers who are interested in these issues should check out a recent paper from the New York Federal Reserve, which does a great job of explaining each of these issues.

I didn’t manage to get all of that into the interview, of course, but I tried to hit some of the high points.

Prevention, Health Costs, and Value

Cost has played a leading role in the policy debate over health care / health insurance. That’s appropriate since private health costs put such a burden on workers and families, and public health costs place such a burden on state and federal budgets.

I worry, however, that the focus on costs and spending sometimes overshadows what ought to be the real goal: getting as much value as possible from our health care system.

A case in point is the debate over preventative care.

Policymakers are desperate for painless ways to pay for expanded health care coverage. Many of them have therefore become enamored of the idea that increased spending on preventative care could reduce overall health spending. As I noted yesterday, however, there’s a problem with that idea: it generally isn’t true.

If your only goal is paying for expanded health care, that finding is both unwelcome and fatal – the search for painless pay-fors will have to look elsewhere.

If your goal is increasing the value we get from our health system, however, your inquiry isn’t done. Instead, you should say “That’s too bad; I was hoping it would save money. But while we’re talking about it, do the benefits of preventative care justify the higher spending?”

Good question.

Continue reading “Prevention, Health Costs, and Value”

Does Prevention Reduce Costs?

One of the common memes in the health debate is the claim that increased spending on preventative medical care (e.g., cancer screening) can reduce overall health spending.

That idea is very attractive, since it seems to offer a free lunch: greater health at lower cost. It has just one small problem, though: it isn’t true.

As the Congressional Budget Office describes in an analysis released on Friday:

Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall.

That result may seem counterintuitive. For example, many observers point to cases in which a simple medical test, if given early enough, can reveal a condition that is treatable at a fraction of the cost of treating that same illness after it has progressed. In such cases, an ounce of prevention improves health and reduces spending—for that individual. But when analyzing the effects of preventive care on total spending for health care, it is important to recognize that doctors do not know beforehand which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case of acute illness, it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway. Even when the unit cost of a particular preventive service is low, costs can accumulate quickly when a large number of patients are treated preventively. Judging the overall effect on medical spending requires analysts to calculate not just the savings from the relatively few individuals who would avoid more expensive treatment later, but also the costs for the many who would make greater use of preventive care.

In short, an ounce of prevention may save a pound of cure for the patients it helps. But those ounces of prevention can add up to tons of costs when spread over millions of patients.

And that’s not all.

Continue reading “Does Prevention Reduce Costs?”