November 9, 2008
Depressions Cause a lot More Pain than Benefits
Depressions Cause a lot More Pain than Benefits-Becker
Some older theories of business cycles-usually associated with the "Austrian" school of economics- claimed that recessions and depressions were useful in helping to remove the poison from an economy that builds up during good times. For example, weaker companies are the first to go when the demand for an industry's product falls during recessions. Employees who are allowed a lot of slack during good times are forced to work harder during recessions in order to keep their jobs.
Positive effects such as these may be somewhat important during very mild downturns, but they are overwhelmed during major recessions and depressions by the negative effects. I define a "major" recession as having an extended period of unemployment rates at 9 percent or more, coupled with declining GDP. It looks like the US and the world economies may be headed for such a recession for the next year or so.
Economists have underplayed the cost to individuals of mild to severe recessions in part because they have neglected the cost of the "fear" generated by bad economic times. In his1932 inaugural address in the midst of the Great Depression Franklin Delano Roosevelt reassured he American public that the "Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself". In fact they had a lot more to fear, but Roosevelt recognized the great importance of fear during depressions. In the present crisis too, consumers and workers have multiple fears due to various kinds of uncertainty. Homeowners fear that they may lose their homes after having used most of their savings as down payments on their homes. The employed fear that they will be laid off, while the unemployed fear that its duration will be quite long, and that they eventually will only get jobs that are much inferior to the ones they had. To be sure, some of the unemployed in many countries will receive unemployment compensation, but many unemployed American do not qualify for this benefit. Moreover, unemployed workers in this country usually receive much less than their earnings while employed, and after a while they run out of benefits, although benefits get extended during recessions.
The fear about losing one's job interacts with fears about being unable to make payments on homes, cars, and other consumer durables. Unemployed persons start missing payments on their homes or cars. If this goes on for several months, they may have their cars repossessed, and their homes put into foreclosure, usually at a time when home prices are down a lot, so that can at best regain only a fraction of the equity they put into their homes.
In addition, the burden of a major recession is not shared uniformly. It usually falls disproportionately on unskilled workers, the young, and those in shaky financial positions, which tend to be persons with lower educations and incomes. For example, the unemployment rate of high school dropouts is traditionally several times that of college graduates, so when the average unemployment rate goes from 6 to 9 percent, that of college graduates may rise to about 4 percent, while that of dropouts will increase to over 20 percent. This recession may be a bit different since the financial sector is being hit so hard. Individuals and families already in shaky circumstances get hit especially hard by major recessions.
It is relatively easy to measure what happens to the unemployment rate during recessions and its differential incidence among different groups, or the number of persons who drop out of the labor force because they despair of finding a job. One can also measure relatively accurately the effects on profits, wages, the path of GDP and personal incomes, and other important variables. It is far harder to measure precisely the effects of serious recessions on individual welfare and happiness. Surveys of reported happiness find that workers who become unemployed are less happy than they were, and persons whose incomes have fallen reported a decline in their happiness, at least initially. Divorce rates and even suicide rates also tend to rise during major recessions, as does crime, discrimination against minorities and immigrants, and pressure toward greater protectionism.
Relative to these major costs, the alleged benefits of a recession to the United States seem quite small, and some of them could also be costs on balance. For example, how many infrastructure projects can be undertaken when states are already running deficits, and face even larger ones in the coming months? The federal government will have a huge deficit during the next year, perhaps a trillion dollars, because of the $700 billion bailout, the stimulus package, and the expected sharp declines in tax revenues.
A serious recession will certainly lead to increased regulation of business and labor markets. Some greater regulation of financial markets would certainly be desirable, as I have argued in prior posts, but some of the likely new regulations will be harmful, such as greater protectionism, wage-type controls over income of top executives, higher taxes on capital gains, and others.
The decline in oil prices by over 50 percent to $60 or less a barrel will certainly help American consumers and companies since the US imports about 2/3 of the oil it uses. It is also helpful to American interests to have less revenue flowing to Venezuela, Russia, and some of the Middle Eastern countries. On the other hand, the US is a major exporter of grains and beef, and the decline in their prices will cause considerable problems for farmers. On balance, I believe the decline in commodity prices is a plus for the US, but not a huge one, especially if oil prices begin to rise sharply after the world recession is over.
A serious recession will further erode the pay and bonuses of top executives at financial and other companies, which many will be happy to see. Managers of mutual and hedge funds and investment banks may have been making much more money than is justified by their productivity, but surely the misery inflicted on the lesser skilled workers, low income families, poor homeowners, and other economically weaker groups is not worth any benefits from a sharp fall in the incomes of those at the top.
So my bottom line in discussing the question whether depressions have a silver lining is that any such lining is very thin and small compared to the major costs to households, workers, and small businessmen.
Do Depressions Have a Silver Lining? Posner
The costs of a depression in lost output, reduced incomes, and anxiety almost certainly exceed the benefits, and can have disastrous long-run consequences--had it not been for the Great Depression, it is unlikely that Hitler would have become chancellor of Germany. But that is not to deny that there can be some benefits, as our current depression illustrates. (The use of the word "recession" to describe any contraction less severe than the Great Depression is a triumph of euphemism over clarity.)
A depression is an essential backup to efforts to moderate the business cycle. The housing bubble could not expand indefinitely; leverage could not keep growing indefinitely. The government was doing nothing to prick the bubble or to limit leverage. The longer the world economy went without a depression, the worse the collapse would be when it finally, inevitably, came. The saving grace of catastrophes is averting worse catastrophes: imagine if, instead of attacking the United States with commandeered airliners, al Qaeda had waited a few years and attacked with suitcase nuclear bombs. We would not have been on guard, as we are now because of the 9/11 attacks.
A depression increases the efficiency with which both labor and capital inputs are used by business, because it creates an occasion for reducing slack.One might think that a firm that has slack in good times will have as much incentive to reduce it as it would in bad times; slack (failing to maximize profits) is an opportunity cost, which in economics has the same motivational effect as an out-of-pocket expense. But firms are organizations, and organizations experience agency costs, which are more difficult to control in good times than in bad. If a firm's profits are growing, it is easier for the firm's executives to skim some of the profits, pocketing them in the form of excessive compensation or perquisites, than when the firm is shrinking. In the former case, stockholders will be doing well, so the pressure they exert through the board of directors to minimize the extraction of rents by executives and other employees will be less intense than when the firm is at risk of collapse. When the depression ends, the firm will have lower average costs, though they will drift upwards as the firm re-grows.
Government is rife with agency costs as well. The depression will induce states, cities, and the federal government, all of which will be experiencing sharply reduced tax revenues, to provide public services more efficiently. It will accelerate the very desirable trend toward privatization of government services such as toll roads and airports.
By increasing unemployment, a depression increases the demand for education by reducing the opportunity cost of it (forgone income is the largest cost of higher education); and education produces positive externalities. It might seem that the depression would also reduce the income gains from being educated; but those gains accrue over a lifetime and so are little affected by a depression during a person's school years.
A depression is a learning experience. The banking industry has certainly learned a great deal from the current financial crisis about the risks of leverage and the downside of complex financial instruments intended to diversify risk more effectively than by traditional means such as retaining highly safe liquid reserves to buffer any unexpected decline in the bank's loan revenues.
The current depression has depressed commodity prices. Of particular importance has been its dramatic effect on the price of oil, which has fallen by about 40 percent in the last six months. The price spike of last spring seems to have been due primarily to a shortage of supply; the industry could not expand production fast enough to keep pace with surging demand, particularly in China and India. The fall in price seems to have been due primarily to a worldwide reduction in demand for oil caused by the global depression. The combination of low prices with low demand is optimal from the standpoint of U.S. (and probably world) welfare. The low demand reduces the amount of carbon emissions, thus alleviating (though only to a slight extent) the problem of global warming. The fall in the price of oil has reduced the wealth of the oil-producing nations—a goal that should be central to U.S. foreign policy because of the hostility to us (Russia, Iran, Venezuela), or the political instability (Iraq, Nigeria, Algeria), of so many major oil-producing nations.
By undermining faith in free markets, the depression opens the door to more government intervention in the economy and eventually to higher taxes (though probably not until the economy improves). These are not necessarily bad things. Obviously neither the optimal amount of government intervention nor the optimal level of taxation is zero. There are compelling arguments for greater government intervention to deal with the threat of global warming, to improve transportation and other infrastructure, to reduce traffic congestion, and to protect biodiversity. Though in principle the money needed for such programs could be obtained from cutting wasteful government programs, that is politically infeasible. So taxes will have to rise. Federal taxes as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product are no higher today than they were in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s—periods of healthy economic growth. The marginal income tax rate reached 94 percent in 1945 and did not decline to 70 percent until 1964 (it is 35 percent today). A modest increase in marginal rates from their present low level would increase tax revenues substantially, probably with little offset due to the distortions that any tax increase is bound to produce.
Taxes should not be increased during a depression, but as we come out of it they can be raised modestly to finance infrastructure investments and other investments in public goods, such as reducing carbon emissions.
The anxiety, reduced consumption, and reduced incomes during a depression are real costs and very heavy ones, but on the other hand the excessive borrowing that precipitated the depression enabled, for a period of years, higher consumption than the nation could actually afford. Thus the current drop in consumption is in part an offset to the abnormal level of consumption earlier. Indeed, since people loaded up with cars, fancy dresses, etc., while times were good (illusorily good because the nation was living beyond its means), the current reduction in the purchase of durables, while hard on sellers, may not be a great hardship to consumers. (Nevertheless, people quickly get habituated to a high level of consumption, and a decline from that level is very painful.)
A related point is that the experience of a depression will induce greater thrift, increasing the formation of investment capital after the depression abates.
Finally, the depression will stimulate fresh thinking by the economics profession. The profession's embarrassing failure to foresee the depression, and the failure of the Federal Reserve Board, of deposit insurance, and of other regulatory institutions and requirements to avert the near collapse of the banking industry, will stimulate fresh thinking about and research in macroeconomics and financial economics; and the regulatory responses initiated by the Bush Administration and those that will be undertaken by the Obama Administration will generate valuable data about the effects of economic regulation. Economists will learn from the bad policies adopted in response to the depression (and some are bound to be bad) as well as from the good ones.