Or, counterfactuals, yet again.
Or, rejoinder to Casey Mulligan, Joseph Lawler, david, tim kemper and others.
From the WSJ March survey survey of forecasters, the results indicate that instead of the 0.15% growth rate recorded in 09Q4 y/y growth, the growth rate would have been -0.93%. For 2010Q4 Q4/Q4 growth, they forecast 3% growth, and in the absence of the ARRA, they would have predicted 2.2% growth.
Professor Casey Mulligan says (and yesterday unequivocally reiterates) the stimulus program would not stimulate the economy. The nonpartisan CBO says otherwise:
Casey Mulligan titles a post Credit Study by the Federal Reserve Says No Crunch, citing a Macroblog post. But he neglects to mention that the survey is “A small business snapshot from the Southeast”. In contrast, a nation-wide NFIB survey summarizes conditions thusly:
Casey Mulligan asks:
So a year later, in September 2009, after living through a year of “disaster,” how did real consumption expenditure (one economists’ favorite measures of living standards) compare to what it was in September 2008?
Both have to be “handled with care”.
Revisions
We’re all tempted to make predictions on the basis of the last data point. And even more difficult to resist is the temptation to make definitive statements on the basis of data that are sure to be revised. For instance, we see this question from Casey Mulligan, “Where’s the GDP Disaster?”.
In an Economix post today, titled “The Panic of ’08: Recession Cause or Effect?” Professor Mulligan writes:
…recent research questions the claim that the financial panics themselves contributed to their contemporaneous and severe employment downturns.
In a recent Economix post, Casey Mulligan asserts that aid to the states and localities is unwarranted given that state and local government employment is doing just fine. His graph highlighting cumulative gains/losses ends in January 2009, to show what had transpired by the time the stimulus bill was being debated. How do things look if one extends the sample to August 2009? And what about spending as opposed to employment?
Since Richard Posner has decided to exhibit his math skills again, I thought it useful to work through some math to see how one can obtain back-of-the-envelope estimates for the stimulus package. I’ll use Mr. Posner’s numbers to illustrate.
The WSJ August survey indicates a resumption of growth in Q3. What was perhaps a bit surprising was the bump up in the Q3 q/q SAAR growth from about 1 percent to 2.4 percent. The out-quarters were little changed. These forecasts imply the following trajectory for GDP.
Some observations on the employment situation and other economic indicators: (1) Not only is nonfarm payroll employment slowing its rate of descent, so is private employment; (2) but perhaps more dramatically the decline of aggregate hours halted last month; (3) the rate of decrease has diminished even faster for civilian employment measured by the household survey, and indeed; (4) the household (research) series adjusted to conform to the payroll series is now improving; and (5) a first “estimate” of July GDP supports the case for stabilization of output.