Forget Fiscal Cliff! Can the Economy Grow in Five Years Without Government Stimulus?

I don't know about you, but the hysteria about the fiscal cliff is beginning to really rub me raw. It is not so much the politicians doing their dance. It is instead the distraction from the larger fundamental question of: "What is right for the long-term health of the economy?"

After a big step back, let's consider what deficit spending has meant to the economy.

% of GDP	2000	2012
Total Government Receipts	20.6%	15.8%
Total Government Outlays	18.2%	24.3%

The amount of taxes paid, as a percentage of GDP, has declined almost 5% of GDP to 15.8%. In other words, instead of paying money to the government, individuals have been purchasing goods and services, a stimulant for the economy. Secondly, government outlays have increased over 6% of GDP to 24.3%. A significant stimulant to the economy has been higher government spending, especially in the area of healthcare.

One can argue that these figures suggest more stimulus is needed in order to avoid an economic slowdown. Indeed, there are economists on the left-side of the spectrum advocating up to $2 trillion of additional stimulus spending in order to grow the "denominator," or GDP. The basis of the argument is that cutting the government deficit produces a 1-to-1 reduction in the private surplus, hurting the economy as witnessed in Europe under austerity measures. Yes, we are talking defined formulas for calculating GDP. Also, intuitively it makes sense that slowing government spending or raising taxes will be a drag on the economy, just as the opposite was true during the last decade.

Source: New Economic Perspectives

However, this raises the philosophical question of whether the government should be the main driver of economic growth for an extended period of time. The government can obviously drive growth, but when pursued for a decade how does this type of growth driver pervert private economic activity? President Obama has maintained budget deficits in excess of 7% of GDP during his term in office. While this has helped avoid a more catastrophic depression, I fear it is also increasing systemic risk as companies increasingly rely on both government spending and lower income and capital gains taxes, either directly or indirectly.

Where I respectively disagree is sustainability of these policies. Economists advocating stimulus spending generally argue that by growing GDP through deficits, the economy can reach a self-perpetuating growth rate, at which point the government can remove stimulus spending and on-going growth can then pay down the debt. Based on this theory, you would think after 4 years of historically high deficits the economy would have performed better. In fact, the only period in the last 10 years of fiscal stimulus that has approached "normal" economic activity was the result of an inflating housing bubble that proved short lived. I suppose an ever increasing deficit and increasingly aggressive monetary policy can keep the economy growing, but there may be a diminishing impact on GDP growth as inefficiencies in the economy are allowed to remain.

The budget deficit as a percentage of GDP has been 10.1%, 9.0%, 8.7% and 7.0% for 2009 through 2012, respectively.  To put this in perspective, the largest budget deficits since WWII were a little over 5%, which only happened twice. In 2013, the budget deficit is forecast between 5.5% to 6.0%.

Again, let's review some numbers:

• US Debt Held by Public - $11.5 trillion (~ 75% of GDP)
• US Debt Outstanding - $16.3 trillion (Greater than 100% of GDP)
• Estimated US Debt Outstanding 2016 - $22.8 trillion (~ 150% of GDP)
• Total Liabilities of US Government (Soc Sec, Medicare, Govt pensions) - $86.8 trillion (550% of GDP)

Here is a measure Debt/GDP from other countries:

• Spain - 85%
• Greece - 175%
• UK - 75%
• Italy - 126%
• France - 90%
• Japan - 235%

Why does the US benefit from ultra-low interest rates while other countries with a slightly higher debt-to-GDP have interest rates spike upwards? One of the main reason, in my opinion, is because of the Fed's bond buying. However, the size and strength of the US economy, a focus mostly on public debt, falling debt service payments, and the view of the dollar as a safe currency play important roles. But, the disparity in interest rates has caused some head-scratching. I believe my Sagflation theory helps to explain this issue through the combination of fundamental deflationary forces offset by expansionary monetary policies, both of which are pushing interest rates lower. 

So debt levels have been rising. At what level does the bond market pull back from US debt is very much debatable. I will leave it by stating the obvious, the higher the leverage ratio the less forgiving is the bond market if the economy slows. Stimulative policies that raise the leverage ratio increase the risk of interest rates spiking should the economy slow before the debt can be reduced.

Why I Continue to Remain Bearish

Returning to two points made previously, and adding one more. Since 2000, the following has happened in the economy:

1. Taxes paid, as a percentage of GDP, has declined almost 5% of GDP to 15.8%. 
2. Government outlays have increased over 6% of GDP to 24.3%.
3. Interest rates on 10-Year Treasuries from around 6% to about 1.5%.

The lower taxes have added a general stimulus to the economy, enabling individuals to purchase more products and services because of a higher after-tax income. Given the current battle in Congress it appears as though taxes paid may go up, either through higher rates or lower deductions. Either way, this stimulant is about to reverse and become a drag as after-tax income declines. Luxury sales are likely to soften as taxes on incomes over $1 million potentially go up.

The larger government outlays as a percentage of GDP have driven growth rates above what is naturally sustainable in segments like defense and construction; and has enabled a woefully inefficient healthcare industry rife with fraud and over-billing. The growth rates in these industries likely moderate, although healthcare may prove more resilient given the changes to the healthcare laws.

The falling interest rates have added significant stimulus to the economy, especially in industries requiring debt financing like housing and autos. Not surprisingly, both the housing market and auto industry has enjoyed a lift as the Fed aggressively purchases treasuries and mortgage-backed securities.

The critical question, in my mind, and the one everyone is fighting over is this:

Is the economy structurally efficient for the long-term?

Hard to answer this question, but I think the fundamental deflationary forces, shadowed by excessive bank reserves, hint at over-supply and poor returns in many industries. Structurally the tax code is inefficient and this constant whining from business leaders about "uncertainty" in Washington hints of businesses too closely tied to the government and its policies.  Finally, the rising amount of poorly written regulation as the government reacts to crises is likely having a cooling effect on the economy.

Mr. Bernanke can keep the growth engine bouncing along as the Fed's balance sheet now exceeds $3 trillion, and in many ways he is doing what is necessary to avoid a deflationary death spiral. But, until the government enables the economy to become more efficient I believe we are doomed to Stagflation.


So while the federal government pursues stimulative measures the markets likely respond favorably. These policies could continue throughout President Obama's term in office. However, the exit of these policies becomes riskier as the debt balance rises and the Federal Reserve's balance sheet inflates. For a fundamental analyst, it is tough to swallow any company-specific analysis when the foundation of the economy seems softer and riskier than ever before.