It has been interesting to watch the economics debate during the recent crisis. What I have noticed is that a Keynesian approach is used as a matter of course by the Federal government, which is depressing, but also that this time around, Keynesians have been in need of defending their ideas, which is encouraging.
One knee-jerk Keynesian is Jim Jubak, who writes for MSN Money. There are parallels between Jubak and Keynes. Like Keynes, Jubak is a successful investor. Like Keynes, Jubak is not an economist. Like Keynes, this does not stop him from making economics commentary.
In a recent article, Jubak blamed a reduction in Federal spending for the recession of 1937. He claimed that Federal spending decreased by 18% in 1937. This did not sound right, so I looked it up. I collected data for receipts (Recs), outlays (outs), spending change (inc), GDP, GDP Increase (GInc) and spending as percent of GDP (S/GDP) for the years 1935-1939:
| Year | Recs | Outs | Inc | GDP | GInc | S/GDP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1935 | 3,609 | 6,412 | -1.97% | $73.30 | 11.06% | 8.75% |
| 1936 | 3,923 | 8,228 | 28.32% | $83.80 | 14.32% | 9.82% |
| 1937 | 5,387 | 7,580 | -7.88% | $91.90 | 9.67% | 8.25% |
| 1938 | 6,751 | 6,840 | -9.76% | $86.10 | -6.31% | 7.94% |
| 1939 | 6,295 | 9,141 | 33.64% | $92.20 | 7.08% | 9.91% |
Federal spending shrank 8% in 1937, not 18% as Jubak claims in his article. There are also several items he omits from his account. In 1935, when Federal spending was first cut since 1927, the economy grew by 11%. In the period he describes, 1937 and 1938, while spending slowed, receipts grew dramatically (37% and 25%), representing a large, effective tax increase. Lastly, the economy grew an impressive 10% in 1937, so while there was a recession later in the year, a better understanding of how the growth and the spending were aligned in time is necessary.
Posts
