Jewish World Review March 13, 2002 / 29 Adar, 5762
The Danger in policy by numbers
You have to hand it to the US. It is the world's greatest Comeback Kid. Knock it down and it comes back - and back.
Witness the much-touted recent "recession". Just a few months ago, America believed itself to be confronting a slowdown so serious as to cast doubt on the validity of the 1990s expansion. Now we learn that it was not a recession after all, at least not in terms of the standard definition of two consecutive quarters of contraction.
What we called a recession must best be labelled a sag. So suddenly it turns out the longest, greatest expansion in the history of the world is still alive. And suddenly Republicans can claim a part of the credit for that expansion, along with President Bill Clinton. Hurrah for both parties!
In fact, America's overnight passage from the dark winter of "recession" to the sunny spring of "growth" illustrates the somewhat arbitrary nature of such specific inflection points and of their vulnerability to political abuse. Indeed, lawmakers who rely too heavily on these official turning-points for political purposes do so at their own peril. It is especially dangerous to claim that short-term stimulus medicine can cure an economy.
Consider the economy and the Republican party over the past decade or so.
Right after he was elected president, George W. Bush wanted to pass tax cuts, a legitimate pro-growth move. But both he and his advisers believed that there was only one way to prevent opposing Democrats from killing their rate cut: to sell it as an emergency nostrum for a weakening economy. Even Democrats would not risk being seen as job-killers. Republicans were not confident enough to argue for tax cuts on their merits alone.
One could contend that the fates favoured the Bush White House here. Even as recession seemed to become real, the tax cut passed through Congress. The White House then went about claiming that its rather limited and gradual cuts would make the recession less severe. Now this month's suggestion that there was no recession seems to confirm their argument. Score one for the Grand Old Party.
But the miracle of 2002 is also working against the Republicans. When the national mood turned worse after September 11, the administration capitalised on the trouble to call for a second "recovery" package. Again, instead of arguing for tax cuts for their own sake, it leant on the downturn.
This time, though, it did not get its stimulus passed in time. And now the whole adventure begins to look silly. On the one hand we have Paul O'Neill, the Treasury secretary, proclaiming to the world that there was no recession; on the other we have the president uncapping his pen to sign "recovery legislation."
And Democrats now have fresh material for attack: they can argue that the "stimulus" was a pointless deficit creator, a costly pander to the rich. Had the administration stuck all along to a line more dependent on principle - tax cuts are good for growth in any weather - it would be less vulnerable today.
Mr Bush's father, of course, suffered far worse losses in the numbers game. The downturn of the early 1990s was used by Mr Clinton, then the Democratic presidential candidate, as a battering ram. For his part, President George Bush seemed to lose faith, and believe in the dire nature of the downturn. Today we know that he was defeated over a "bad economy" in a quarter when the annualised rate of growth was 5.4 per cent. The revised numbers that favoured Mr Bush were published far too late for his political schedule.
Or take the Reagan years. Everyone believed they were good - but just how good were they? Eight years ago, people used to cite the Economic Report of the President, which suggested that growth in the mid- and late 1980s bumped around the twos and threes. Today, they cite revised editions of the same volume, which show that growth in the period was really in the threes and fours. But did we really need this adjustment to show pro-growth policies are good?
Such faith in numbers is understandable. There is something about human beings that loves the reassurance of data, if only as emotional confirmation: Americans felt bad after September 11, so they latched on to a "recession" that seemed to reify their mood. And specific data are even more welcome because they seem to convey particular accuracy.
But it is a fallacy to believe that estimates and forecasts that stretch out a number of decimal points are necessarily more accurate than round figures. If a teacher insists a child deserves a mark of B plus, does that mean the teacher is correct in his assessment that the child performed two increments better than his B-minus class mate? Perhaps both deserved a B.
This is not to say that the US is any worse a user or abuser of numbers than other nations. Gerhard Schroder's government in Germany is currently suffering from the humiliating discovery that its labour office misrepresented the number of job and training placements the office facilitated.
Nor is it right to conclude that the golden ideal of accuracy is not worth striving for, or that there are not true downturns and upswings. In the downturn that brought Mr Clinton victory, the US economy really did lose jobs - a million of them. The economy bled jobs last autumn as well. The great upswing of the 1990s had real causes: computers and a flexible labour force made the economy more productive.
The point is simply that consumers, market operators and voters are too trusting when they assume the precision of official numbers and allow lawmakers to use those data to short-term political ends. Economics makes sense when applied to the long term, not in the next election
JWR contributor Amity Shlaes is a columnist for Financial Times
. Her latest book is
The Greedy Hand: How Taxes Drive Americans Crazy and What to Do About It. Send your comments by clicking here.
02/26/02 :States' smokescreen for tax hypocrisy
02/20/02: Echoes of leadership against a global threat
02/13/02: Jackson Vanik May be a Useful Analogy When Thinking About the Middle East
02/07/02: Budgeting for victory: Requiem for a peace dividend
02/05/02: The detectives of 1930s pulp fiction had a nose for clients bearing gifts. Sadly, those consulted by Enron did not
01/22/02: Allow all American children a decent chance
01/15/02: Do not disturb the profit-sharing revolution
01/09/02: It is dangerous to elevate a currency as a political emblem if the need for other economic reforms is obscured
01/03/02: There is only one way for a free thinker to bring up children
12/20/01: Why America's economy always bounces back
12/18/01: When it comes to taxes, Washington lawmakers can learn a thing or two from The Honeymooners
12/13/01: Bush opens a new era
12/12/01: A flamboyant reversal for the Democratic party
12/06/01: Threat of an oil embargo on the U.S. is a bluff
11/29/01: Which is more important--the war or diplomatic comity?
11/20/01: Unbalanced by a wealth of oil and diamonds
10/17/01: Afghanistan Needs a General MacArthur
09/27/01: The US has gained an understanding of the costs of war for which its European allies have hitherto wished in vain
09/13/01: War against terrorism will rise from the ashes
08/15/01: Geography is no excuse for the state's economic stagnation. Its policymakers should take a leaf from Ireland's book
08/07/01: Teamsters may pay a heavy price for winning its batle in Congress
07/25/01: Towards a patent-free nirvana?
07/17/01: History proves the lasting value of tax cuts
07/10/01: Stem cell research has awakened a bitter debate in Washington but voters care more about other electoral issues
07/03/01: America foots the bill for Europe's largesse
06/26/01: America the litigious, land of the lawyer's fee
06/20/01: Five reasons for gloom about global growth
06/18/01: Show pity for Alice in Tax Wonderland
06/13/01: America must take a French lesson in trade
06/11/01: Time to dream the impossible dream for Iraq
06/07/01: Whatever happened to simple?
06/04/01: When the relationship between companies becomes as close as a marriage, the eventual break-up is often very painful
06/01/01: Loving and hating the Bush tax bill
05/30/01: Will Grisham soon be unemployed? In America's courts these days, there's no room left over for legal fiction
05/22/01: Republicans sample the rhetoric of confidence
05/16/01: Boeing has been promised $60m to site its headquarters in Illinois. The deal looks a poor one for taxpayers
05/14/01: Adam Smith in love
05/09/01: Those rotten Russian capitalists
05/07/01: Why tax havens provide shelter for everyone
05/04/01: Middle classes pay for get-the-rich folly
05/01/01: Money can't buy happiness? Think again.
04/26/01: Calling America's rogues and entrepreneurs
04/19/01: High earners right to feel lonely at the top
04/11/01: The right must learn the comfort of strangers
04/04/01: When domestic law arrives by the back door
03/30/01: A Lexus tax cut suits the jalopy driver
03/27/01: The unchallenged dominance of King Dollar
03/20/01: Natural selection of an intellectual aristocracy
03/16/01: The hidden danger of a regulatory recession
03/14/01: Is the American condition that boring? Why so many Oscar nominated movies aren't set in America
03/07/01: Trampling on the theory of path dependence
03/05/01: Fighting the good fight
03/01/01: It is time for Fannie and Freddie to grow up
02/27/01: IT's important
02/22/01: The guilty conscience of America's millionaires
02/14/01: The benefits of helping the 'rich'
02/09/01: The Danger and Promise of the Bush Schools Plan
02/05/01: Crack and Compassion
01/31/01: Debt is good
01/24/01: A gloomy end for a half-hearted undertaking
01/17/01: The challenge of an ally with its own mind
01/15/01: An unexpected American family portrait
01/10/01: A fitting legacy for America's beloved dictator
01/08/01: The trick of tax 'convenience'
01/03/01: Time to stop blaming Greenspan over taxes
12/11/00: So smart they're dumb
12/06/00: How economic bad news came good for Bush
12/04/00: The Boies factor
11/30/00: "The inevitable demands for recounts erupted like acne…"
11/28/00: Fair play and the rules of the electoral game
11/23/00: The shining prospect beyond a cloudy election
11/21/00: Try the Cleveland model
11/16/00: A surprising winner emerges in the US election
11/09/00: Those powerful expats
What's right for America versus what works
11/02/00: Time to turn off big government's autopilot
10/30/00: Canada beating America in financial sensibility
10/26/00: When progressiveness leads to backwardness
10/24/00: The most accurate poll
10/19/00: The Middle East tells us the hawks were right
10/17/00: The split personalities of America's super rich
10/10/00: 'Equity Rights' or Wake up and Smell the Starbucks
10/04/00: Trapped in the basement of global capitalism
09/21/00: The final act of a grand presidential tragedy
09/21/00: Europeans strike back at the fuel tax monster. Should Americans follow?
09/18/00: First steps to success
09/13/00: America rejects the human rights transplant
09/07/00: Minimum wage, maximum cost
09/05/00: Prudent Al Gore plans some serious spending
08/31/00: A revolution fails to bring power to the people
08/28/00: A reali$tic poll
08/21/00: "I Goofed"
08/16/00: Part of the union, but not part of the party
08/09/00: Silicon Alley Secrets
08/02/00: Radical Republicans warm up for Philadelphia
07/31/00: I'll Cry if I Want To
07/27/00: Cold warrior of the new world
07/25/00: The Estate Tax will drop dead
07/18/00: Shooting down the anti-missile defence myths
07/14/00: A convenient punchbag for America's leaders
07/07/00: How to destroy the pharmaceutical industry
07/05/00: Patriots and bleeding hearts
06/30/00: Candidates beware: New Washington consensus on robust growth stands the old wisdom on its head
06/28/00: White America's flight to educational quality
06/26/00: How Hillary inspired the feminist infobabes
© 2001, Financial Times