Has the gargantuan stimulus stimulated anything?

Let us review the recent record on federal spending stimulus and its relationship to GDP growth, about which data are freely available from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.  In February 2008, $165 billion—for the most part, dollar transfers to the states and increased federal outlays—was spent as economic “stimulus.”  In 2009, the infamous $862 billion Obama stimulus package was enacted, comprising spending increases of $574 billion and various tax reductions of $288 billion.  Over the last few months, with the looming elections and monstrous polling numbers concentrating the minds of White House and Congressional leaders, proposals for $100-200 billion in additional “stimulus” spending have been prominent.

And so the increase in the national debt has been gargantuan; but has there been any resulting “stimulus,” that is, enhanced economic growth?  The following charts show the respective contributions of private investment, personal consumption, net exports, and government spending to GDP growth for the last three years.

Investment changes explain most of the recession and recent recovery.  Changes in personal consumption have an effect that is important but smaller, while changes in net exports seem to explain only some of the smaller GDP changes in 2008.  What is of greater interest is the contribution of government outlays: They have had virtually no effect at all (with a simple “correlation” with GDP growth of only about 5 percent).

Can this possibly surprise anyone?  For all the White House happy talk about multipliers and other such manifestations of poor economic analysis, resources used by government must come from somewhere, and unless that somewhere is a mattress, the effect of “stimulus” is to shift economic activity rather than to increase it.  But the shift, of course, is toward activities approved politically; the real goal of “stimulus” is to stimulate government and its constituencies rather than the economy writ large.

This weak GDP effect of federal spending is consistent with the modern peer-reviewed literature; not only are the White House economists familiar with it, some of them have contributed to it.  At best, therefore, President Obama and his political advisers have engaged in self-deception; at worst, they have displayed rank cynicism in vastly expanding federal spending and debt merely to subsidize the public employee unions and other allies.  Which is it?  It is becoming clear that in substantial part the November election will be a referendum on that question, and that the answer will not be one from which the White House will be able to claim vindication.

Benjamin Zycher is a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute. He may be reached at benzycher@zychereconomics.com.

  • Pingback: Dead Cats: Ryan’s Map, 07/28/10, (3)15 James Brody | Dead Cats & Clippings - “The liberation of the human mind has been best furthered by…fellows who throw dead cats in sanctuaries.” H. L. Mencken

  • Pingback: Informative Links for July 27, 2010 | What Am I Missing Here?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steve-Lattanzio/1306734 Steve Lattanzio

    He said that the data came from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and that information is available to anyone so you can check it.

    Even if you take the White Houses numbers as the truth, it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to create a single job. Actually, if you take the Christina Romer and the White House’s predictions prior to the stimulus when they were trying to sell the idea to the public, the stimulus is responsible for costing millions of jobs as we have significantly higher unemployment today than they said we would have without the stimulus.

    And any way you slice it, there has been no multiplier effect in the GDP.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-David-Kwamya/733445794 John David Kwamya

    I guess that based on this article personal consumption hasn’t done anything and should be abolished. Exports haven’t helped so they should be abolished. It’s amazing that the economy can see those little stimulus dollars coming along and it makes sure to keep its mojo on the back burner. When it sees a nice cute investment dollar it just revs up and bats its pretty eyes and gets all juiced up. I love economics it’s so sexy.

    Oh, wait. He posted 4 charts without telling us where they came from and who put them together. But it must be right because its on the internet – right?

    • jrw

      How inane. The fact that there is no correlation doesn’t mean that they should be abolished. A graph showing the correlation between coffee consumption and GDP would show no correlation either, but neither does that suggest that coffee should be abolished.

      The logical conclusion is that they shouldn’t be PURSUED in an effort to increase GDP. My assumption is that the 4 graphs were chosen as they are 4 of the commonly spouted forces that drive GDP.

      Of the 4, only 2 show correlation, and only one is significant. These graphs suggest that to grow GDP, INVESTMENT should be encouraged above all else, and secondarily, personal consumption. They further suggest that stimulus spending was a gargantuan waste of money.

  • Pingback: Has the gargantuan stimulus stimulated anything? - Benjamin Zycher | The Kansas Progress

  • gregbo

    I got your stimulus package right here. ( let the record show I’m grabbing my crotch).