U. S. GDP Growth

This post covers territory I’ve covered here before. It riffs to a certain extent on a theme I sounded in comments on a couple of posts by James Joyner over at OTB. The data in the graph above illustrates the real year-on-year growth in the U. S. GDP since World War II. The data are taken from the BEA.

I want to draw your attention to two important facts. First, the experience in growth over the last twenty years shows a markedly slower rate than prevailed over the previous twenty years or the previous forty years.

Second, the period since 1990 has included two bubbles: the dot-com bubble and the real estate bubble. Those bubbles are clearly evident in the peaks over the last twenty years.

In a comment at James’s post I suggested that in the coming years we were likely to experience growth more similar to that of Western Europe, where growth has typically hovered in the 2% range, than it did to levels of 4% or higher. A rather rude commenter there retorted that my claim was absurd. That the commenter apparently thinks that demographics and population size are synoymous is a subject for another time.

What forces could lead to growth at the 4% or higher level? Besides the unexpected which is just that, unexpected, I can only think of two. If you believe that we’re going to experience growth at a level higher than that of other developed countries you must either believe that we’re going to continue to experience a high level of immigration and/or that we’re going to continue to experience bubbles.

Immigration into the United States is overwhelmingly from Mexico. Many of those who adhere to the persistence theory believe we’ll see the high rate of immigration from Mexico we’ve seen over the last twenty-five years continue indefinitely into the future. That isn’t likely to happen due to Mexican demographics and economic growth in the United States and Mexico. For an illustration of why we’re less likely to see mass immigration from Latin America, generally, see here.

Will we have more bubbles? What’s the evidence for this?

Meanwhile, I’ll open the question up for comments. Do you think we’re going to see GDP growth in the U. S. at a rate of 4% a year or higher? Why?

It bears mentioning that many pension plans assume growth in their investment portfolios of 8% per year. If GDP growth is 2% a year, that would need a pretty darned good alpha.

Update

When I re-read this post a couple of things occurred to me. The first is that I probably haven’t explained my emphasis on immigration enough. One of the factors in economic growth in the United States is almost certainly the increasing population. Our population is growing faster than Japan’s (Japan’s is shrinking), for example, which explains some of our economic growth, too. The birth rate is higher among immigrant women than among native born women here. If you remove immigrants and the children of immigrants from the picture, population growth in the United States resembles that of Western European countries much more closely.

The also appears to me to be a built-in assumption in the argument that ongoing population will continue to produce more economic growth rather than less growth. Not only do I believe that we’re likely to see less immigration into the United States over the next twenty years than we have over the last twenty but I strongly suspect that the next wave of immigrants (if there is one) is likely to be poorer and less educated, particularly relative to the structure of the economy, than previous waves.

Given that world demographics tells us that the fastest growing populations are in Africa and Asia, that’s where the immigrants are likely to come from too. I suspect that France and Germany will be the preferred destinations for the new immigrants rather than the United States. The soul-searching that’s going on in Western Europe today on this subject will be very telling in this regard.

39 comments… add one
  • john personna Link

    The odd thing is that in the 80’s noise collapsed on that chart. And, unfortunately, with the noise went the noisy highs which made the high-average.

    Maybe I’m missing part of your argument, but shouldn’t any explanation of reduced growth also explain the reduced volatility?

    Surely they come from the same source.

  • I don’t honestly know why the valleys aren’t as low and the peaks aren’t as high. More developed economy? More effective economic engineering is successful at raising the valleys a bit and has the unforeseen secondary effect of lowering the peaks as well?

    An anecdote I’ve related here before is from my C20 economics course (advanced microeconomics) nearly 50 years ago. The prof said “Economists don’t know how to create prosperity but we do know how to produce shortages”. The answer might be something along those lines.

  • john personna Link

    I think it’s key, based on my experience in scientific chart reading.

    We should probably look for things that overlay. There was an inflection point in consumer debt at that point. It would fit my worldview to call that the problem, but I’m not really sure about the mechanics. Consumer spending is supposed to be stimulative.

    … but maybe too much debt service just cripples an economy.

  • john personna Link

    (Note the downside volatility was actually reduced as well. Did we have a more (hyper)active Fed post-80’s?)

  • john personna Link

    ohhh,

    energy prices

    The peakers would love to put it all on that.

  • Note the downside volatility was actually reduced as well. Did we have a more (hyper)active Fed post-80’s?

    Yes, that was the thrust of my comment. I think that’s the case.

    I suspect we’ll have some difficulty in establishing a smoking gun. Factors that operate at low but continuous rates have a way of sneaking up on you. Two or three percent a year doesn’t amount to very much at first but over time it becomes enormous.

  • john personna Link

    You know, the energy thing was something else that made us suddenly more like Europe.

    And, baring magic technology, it isn’t going to change.

    Without going all peak, it’s important to understand that cheap energy makes everything in an economy go so much easier.

  • PD Shaw Link

    No, I don’t think we’re likely to see 4.0% growth. I’ve brought up growth as a possible factor in dealing with our fiscal problems, but that was merely to point out that spending and taxes are not the sole dimmensions of the problem.

  • john personna Link

    Spending and taxes are just the sole dimensions that can be directly legislated.

    Legislating GDP indirectly has been a mixed bag, to say the least.

  • Monetary theory, IMO. That is why things leveled out. During the late 1960s and early 1970s Keynes was king, then we had stagflation and all the models up to that point were relegated to the rubbish bin. Macro research back then focused on dynamic general equilibrium models, expectations and micro foundations. The results was that money mattered and fiscal policy was at best a cumbersome tool. Add on the issue dynamic time inconsistency and the idea of a fed that was very hawkish on inflation and you get stability…and also lower growth. In other words, the outlook at the Fed changed. It was one that was more consistent with Friedman, Lucas, and others. Also, keep inflation low and if necessary trigger a recession. As such swings in monetary policy became less volatile.

    Also that super high growth early on in the graph is likely due to the end of the war and the command economy during that time. People were then free to get back to making money and boy did they. Take that out and the average growth rate in the first part of the chart would likely drop. It would still be above the growth rate in the latter half, but they would be closer.

    Also, can you fix that horizontal axis? It looks like complete gibberish to me.

  • Drew Link

    Heh. Growth declines to European levels as US and local government influence increases over the past 60 years. Well no shit.

    Let the arrows be released from the quivers.

    I think Steve V has a great point. In additon, one has to ask what are the two major internal stabilizing influences on business over the past 40 years: flexible labor, and better inventory management. Each reduced volatility.

  • john personna Link

    Comparative growth figures might prove the local gov thing, or not.

    Nor Cal had pretty stunning growth, for a bunch of lefties.

  • Yeah Drew’s point about better logistics is good as well. I hear that many companies run very tight operations so that they don’t have lots of inventory in the wrong place when price changes occur.

  • PD Shaw Link

    It also may be relevant that noise drops around the time of the end of the cold war, and at about the time of the fullest extent of free trade occurs.

  • In additon, one has to ask what are the two major internal stabilizing influences on business over the past 40 years: flexible labor, and better inventory management. Each reduced volatility.

    Each raised the marginal utility of capital as well.

  • Nor Cal had pretty stunning growth, for a bunch of lefties.

    I think the causality may kind of go the other way. When you have a vibrant economy and robust growth you can afford a more activist government.

  • john personna Link

    I agree Dave that taxes tend to be higher in nice places to live. I noticed that when I started playing with zillow.

    Interesting comment on logistics. Inventory, via gross investment, is a component of GDP. A wide change in inventory management would make it harder to compare say 60’s GDP with 00’s GDP.

  • steve Link

    If we calculated our GDP the same way as European countries, our GDP would be about the same during those years. I would also expect lower growth rates. We have lots of debt and inventory to work off. Once that is done, we will continue to suffer from our innovation shortage. Money has been going into financial instruments, not new companies.

    Steve

  • Drew Link

    “Each raised the marginal utility of capital as well.”

    Maybe I don’t have the proper facility with the jargon, but I’d quibble and say – as an investor and businessman – that lower inventory and labor cost risk leads to a greater propensity to invest.

    Perhaps that’s Dave’s point.

  • Drew Link

    “Money has been going into financial instruments, not new companies.”

    That’s a convenient, trendy, bitch. Great for vapid dinner party conversation. But as someone who’s entire life and career is investing in companies……….I say bullshit, from first hand experience. We are here, and ready, willing and able.

    And the incompetant Obama/Pelosi regime is doing everything they can think of to thwart the venture and private equity business. Anyone who votes Democrat loses their moral authority to whine about capital formation and investment in growth enterprises.

    These people are the worst thing to happen to entreprenureal enterprise in my working life. Simply the worst.

  • john personna Link

    We’re still back to “what has been the common theme since the 80’s”

    If that chart had shown day and night changes on party transitions or something, then it might support typical partisanship. (Un)fortunately it does not.

  • And the incompetant Obama/Pelosi regime is doing everything they can think of to thwart the venture and private equity business. Anyone who votes Democrat loses their moral authority to whine about capital formation and investment in growth enterprises.

    These people are the worst thing to happen to entreprenureal enterprise in my working life. Simply the worst.

    I largely agree with the addendum that party affiliation is meaningless. If it had been 8 years of Democrats and in the final year a huge crisis came about the Republicans would push a radical agenda….and in fact I’d argue they did post 9/11.

    Seriously, grab your camera and go start taking photos of federal buildings and let us know how it goes….after you post bail.

  • steve Link

    “That’s a convenient, trendy, bitch. Great for vapid dinner party conversation. But as someone who’s entire life and career is investing in companies……….I say bullshit, from first hand experience. We are here, and ready, willing and able.”

    I’d call bullshit back. What was happening since 2000? Where have the jobs been? Has everyone been waiting since then? For what? If there had been good job growth up until the recession, you would have a better case.

    Steve

  • steve Link

    “That’s a convenient, trendy, bitch. Great for vapid dinner party conversation. But as someone who’s entire life and career is investing in companies……….I say bullshit, from first hand experience. We are here, and ready, willing and able.”

    I’d call bullshit back. What was happening since 2000? Where have the jobs been? Has everyone been waiting since then? For what? If there had been good job growth up until the recession, you would have a better case.

    Steve

  • Drew Link

    “I’d call bullshit back. What was happening since 2000? Where have the jobs been? Has everyone been waiting since then? For what? If there had been good job growth up until the recession, you would have a better case.”

    Steve –
    Don’t ask me to make your ridiculous case. You made the assertion, you make the case. What you said is just lightweight crapola.

    I’m the private equity guy, not you. We’ve been busting our balls to find good investment opportunities. We’ve found some, although its tough. We’ve invested. There is revenue growth, profit growth, employment growth, etc.

    And you sit around – adopting a banal, vapid, and intellectually light line – whining like an old women about diversion of investment into financial products. Steve – I’ll put my efforts: investment into “companies,” rather than “financial instruments” up against your efforts anytime. I have absolutely no doubt that I’ve created more revenue, profit, tax revenue, jobs compared to to anything you have done or ever hope to do in your entire career. Sorry, we are just a growth machine.

    So my point stands: Obama and Pelosi – read their proposals – are absolutely the worst thing to happen to capital formation and venture related GDP creation I’ve ever seen. And idiotic, political, statements about funneling funds to “financial instruments” at the expense of “company” investments are just diversionary and, well, idiotic.

  • john personna Link

    We should always remember that “my point stands” can be read “I still think my point stands,” the actual judgement being with the readers.

  • Icepick Link

    Drew, the argument isn’t that you and your PE org haven’t invested in companies, nor that others haven’t – it’s that the financial sector in aggregate has spent more time fucking around with CDSs and other financial derivatives than it has in actually raising capital to create new lines of (non-financial) business. It’s really hard to argue now that MBSs were a great creator of captial investment, isn’t it?

    Thus the financial sector has grown to be an ever larger share of the total economy – and has captured an ever larger share of the government. If the finance sector was as efficient as you claim your group to be then it shouldn’t have outgrown the rest of the economy by so much in recent decades. At the very least this argues that the financial sector has had diminishing returns for the rest of the economy – ie it’s a bad investment on the part of the country.

    That’s not banal dinner party conversation, that’s looking at -and thinking about- the numbers.

    Meanwhile, I have to comment on your commenting style. You claimed recently that I’m relentlessly negative. Have you read your own comments? In the past you have called me a liar simply for disagreeing with you. (See a debate back in June or July about Social Security and Medicare.) You have accused steve of being in medicine only to screw over his own patients for his own financial gain. You constantly and consistently attack everyone that doesn’t parrot everything you believe. Where exactly are your positive remarks about ANYTHING other than how wonderful and fabulous you are? Reading your comment above you seem to think you’re a greater human being than the Buddha, Jesus and Bono – even if they were all rolled into one. For someone so wonderful all you offer is non-stop contempt for everyone that isn’t you.

    PS To be fair, you also talk about how wonderful PE firms are in general. After reading your comments one would think that it was PE that eliminated small pox and put men on the Moon.

  • Drew Link

    By the way, I was just tweeking Steve’s nose.

    JP – Here’s some data if you care. If you (or Steve) can make the case that we’ve been investing in “financial instruments” and not in “companies” after looking at PE capital formation, BLS stats on non-residential investment, and IPO volume you are a better man than I:

    Table 2: New Commitments to Private Equity Partnerships
    Billions of dollars
    Year Total Venture Non-Venture
    1980 2.3 2.1 0.2
    1981 1.8 1.6 0.3
    1982 2.6 2 0.6
    1983 5.6 4.2 1.4
    1984 6.6 3.2 3.5
    1985 6.3 3.1 3.2
    1986 8.9 3.7 5.1
    1987 21.2 4.8 16.4
    1988 15.9 4.5 11.4
    1989 17.5 5.6 11.9
    1990 10.8 3.1 7.7
    1991 7.1 1.8 5.3
    1992 18 5 13
    1993 22.3 4.5 17.7
    1994 30.6 7.6 23
    1995 41.8 9.9 31.9
    1996 48.2 11.8 36.4
    1997 71.7 17.1 54.6
    1998 97.4 29.4 68
    1999 123.2 60 63.2
    2000 177.3 104.8 72.5
    1980-2000 737.1 289.8 447.3
    Source: Covitz

    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,26637,26731,26992&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=volume+of+private+equity+capital+raised+1980&cp=43&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=volume+of+private+equity+capital+raised+198&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=cac716aade6fa416

    Gross private domestic investment:
    http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:BsVBZgCUhNYJ:www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/11/art1full.pdf+us+corporate+investment+1980+2010&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjAkiVXmpGU8W8KMKucf_FrwI-ewg1OjNI1jrNgeRMQxWgxNAtQg2xloYyPtmUQN7RiBAP9r_eor8Lf1CtkWP9OHCqSx0BRDsKwkkVsOB5gGGB2YeMiDi_2CA2FWh-_lY5zLv-A&sig=AHIEtbTzqgFf4b86KSn3EcAZHY35WJZgHw
    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?chart_type=line&s%5B1%5D%5Bid%5D=GPDI&s%5B1%5D%5Btransformation%5D=pch

    And just to make sure we are not looking at residential investment:
    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?chart_type=line&s%5B1%5D%5Bid%5D=PNFI&s%5B1%5D%5Btransformation%5D=pch

    Technology IPO Volume:

    http://demo.tizra.com/okktl/11

    Icepick:

    In order:
    1. Look at the data. There has been no decline in investment since the 80’s, which was the proposition.

    2. The investment banking activities you cite are simply intermediary activities. I’ve never seen an investment banker yet who spends his time creating new enterprises. They simply auction them and raise capital for them. The activity is quite robust, and has not in any way shape or form been diminished by the securitization phenomenon. In fact, senior capital availability (for investing in companies) has actually been dramatically increased by securitization.

    3. The fact that the investment banks have enjoyed regulatory capture is an argument for smaller government, and not germain to the notion that “the financial sector” no longer invests in companies. As for PE growth, look at the chart. The last time I looked, $2.3B going to $177B from 1980 to 2000 was about 77x. Not bad, and more than GDP. Further, the numbers are dated. The 2000’s saw prolific fundraising. Maybe your calculator does numbers differently.

    4. “Reading your comment above you seem to think you’re a greater human being than the Buddha, Jesus and Bono.”

    But I am. Look, its just schtick, and an attempt to get a rise out of people to sharpen debate and thinking.

    My real point on this issue is that Dave raised a very interesting and important problem. But is deserves commentary as serious as the problem. I have to stand by my point: a throw away remark about starving company investing at the expense of financial instrument investing just doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Like I said, its just convenient dinner party babble.

    If we could really come up with the answer we could all win Nobel Prizes, but spitting venom at investment bankers, even as much as they are not my cup of tea, does no good.

  • Drew Link

    PS –

    I have to give this more thought, but I suspect the series of posts Dave did on the baby boom buldge moving through our economy over time is an important component of that GDP issue.

  • steve Link

    Then why the lackluster growth, especially in jobs created after 2000? Were they all gong to undocumented workers? Should we include or exclude the 40% going to the financial sector? If we do, GDP growth was pretty crappy. Your data stops at 2000 when the period which most concerns me is the period from 2000-2007.

    I also tend to think of the investor class as being a bit broader than venture capitalists. I would bet that if all of the investor class, the wealthy and well-to-do, were doing what you do, we would be better off. OTOH, I dont see a lot of correlation between economic performance and VC expenditures. It tends to look more like it is late rally related. Anyway, if the wealthy, the productive members of our society, the investors, are wealthier than ever before, why arent we sloshing around in jobs and new business? What were they doing the 2000s?

    I still think it a distinct possibility that even the venture capitalists are investing in new businesses that are not necessarily resulting in many new jobs. If we are getting more new businesses that use the US as a place to do the engineering and marketing while sending the manufacturing elsewhere, maybe even sending the engineering also, what will be end result? Throw in the large amounts of capital migrating into the finance world, and I think you have valid concerns about our investor class.

    Steve

  • Drew Link

    Steve –

    I don’t understand why you believe jobs growth and GDP growth should be in parallel. They may directionally correlate, but I know of no theory that says it should be one to one.

    In fact, the very essence of productivity increases dictates the opposite, but also for better standards for those employed. Further, in an open economy, comparative advantage may mean that some skills may migrate out of an economy artificially defined as “the USA” and into a more broadly defined economy defined as “global.” To make the point: I’ve often found it odd that this is not an obvious concept. If Iowa steals jobs from Illinois we don’t think a thing about it, and nash our teeth about “unfair foreign competition.” Yet if the Chinese take an Illinois job, we scream bloody murder. Why? From an Illinois perspective, what’s the difference? And should we introduce protectionist measures against those no good damned Iowan’s??

    To be sure, this leaves us with real social issues to grapple with. But let’s not resort to populist notions that its all the “moneychangers” fault. That’s bush league.

    As for the breadth of the investor class, no sane person would simply define it as VC’s or PE’s. (That’s why I included broader measures in my previous post.) But we have to deal with reality. About 2/3rds of job growth comes from small business. So we have to ask what the state of mind of the small business owners and investors is. And when the risk and reward relationship turns sour, that won’t be good for small business. That’s what we have now; I see it in my chosen profession everyday. You may not like the job to GDP “intensity,” as it stands today, (I don’t either) but resorting to claims that we are cannibalizing “company” capital at the expense of “financial instrument” capital just don’t stand up. And the current administration is just diametrically opposite of what we need to grow our way out of this mess right now.

    I’d look in the mirror and ask yourself – if you’ve ever voted for an Obama or Pelosi or pol of their ilk – what did my vote do, and what are these pols doing to foster investment – at whatever job creation intensity that investment currently yields – before resorting to the easy way out of finger pointing at “financial instruments,” – the capital markets, really. That argument goes nowhere, and is self destructive.

    As for data stopping in 2000, it was only only the PE formation data. But PE funds raised was out of this world in the 2000’s. Next.

  • john personna Link

    Drew, what I was really thinking about your Oct. 20 post was that it seemed classic “opposing party in power derangement syndrome.”

    I was thinking back to that graph we saw about businesses “biggest problem” and “poor sales.” It can be true, but it won’t be on your radar, not when you can just work yourself into a “Obama and Pelosi” lather.

    In your Oct. 20 post you didn’t talk about trends from the 80’s. You talked about some kind of day and night switch when “Obama and Pelosi ” took over.

  • john personna Link

    Drew, be aware that your ongoing message looks like this:

    “the recession is just noise, it’s Obama socialism that is killing us.”

    Which of course, is stupid.

  • Drew Link

    JP – Perhaps my writing was sloppy, but let me clarify.

    1. The recession is not just noise. But apologists for the left – or citations of “party in power derangement” – conveniently forget that the Democrats took over the purse strings after the 2006 election. Things were pretty good in 2006. And those Democrats would be a certain Speaker Pelosi and Senate majority Leader Reid.. To deny or ignore that is stupid.

    2. To state that “poor sales” is the primary problem is like noting that airplanes crash because of gravity. Undeniably true, but completely useless and moronic as an analytical framework for understanding root causes. Why are sales poor? Consumer concerns? Leverage? Prospective taxation? Business concerns? Consider that many sales are the product of new product introductions, price changes due to efficiencies, new channel access, new geography access etc, etc etc. Businesses are not in that mode right now. Your comment, and citation, shows no business sense whatsoever. As someone in the business of owning and operating businesses we don’t stand around like dopes and say “gee, sales are poor, nothing we can do;” we get at the task of figuring out how to deal with our economic realities. And the current Administration is no friend to improving those realities. From our perspective, and the overwhelming majority of business owners we speak with, we have quite a headwind under the current Administration. You may not want to hear or acknowledge that, but its just an empirical fact.

    2. You may disagree, but as someone intimately involved in the capital markets, I’ll tell you the seeds of the financial meltdown, and therefore the recession, lie in EZ credit………which means sub-prime lending……..which means dictated social policy……..which means housing and CRA. And pricing in the housing market took off in Q3 2006. Look at the C/S data, and save the Bush bashing for some mindless mind-buddy.

  • john personna Link

    Did Democrats really have an override-proof majority, especially on economic issues, after 2006?

  • john personna Link

    Speaking of mis-speaking, I mean veto-proof.

  • Drew Link

    Weak, John. Weak.

  • john personna Link

    Are you kidding? I thought all three of your points were … weak, to choose a word, but I thought I could peel them off one by one.

    You said “apologists for the left – or citations of “party in power derangement” – conveniently forget that the Democrats took over the purse strings after the 2006 election”

    That doesn’t even rise to being a differing conclusion or a differing philosophy.

    It is simply wrong on fact. That’s the worst possible way to fail in argument.

  • steve Link

    “To be sure, this leaves us with real social issues to grapple with. But let’s not resort to populist notions that its all the “moneychangers” fault. That’s bush league.”

    That is the crux of the whole thing. We have been creating Europe, but without the social safety nets. Whatever the investing class is doing is making them money, but fewer other Americans are also benefiting. How long is that sustainable? How far can that go? Why did it start happening? Just as the late 70s, early 80s appears to be a key turning point, it looks to me like something happened around 2000-2001. With all of the stars aligned, low capital gains, low income tax and a favorable administration, money stopped going to ventures that produce jobs like they did in the 90s or 80s. What changed?

    ” And the current administration is just diametrically opposite of what we need to grow our way out of this mess right now.”

    What would? How would it be substantially different than the environment you had from 2000-2007

    Steve

Leave a Comment