Soaring on the Trampoline

Obama's tweet, image found here

Earlier this week, former president Barack Obama celebrated the 11^th anniversary of signing of the “Recovery Act,” a piece of legislation that he claims resulted in our current booming economy. And he has rightly been scoffed for it. 

But it’s a good opportunity to exemplify the trampoline effect, so let’s do that.

The trampoline effect—a term invented by my son Political Sphere—is what happens when there’s interference in the economy. When government reaches in to “help,” it takes the energy out of the natural rebound. It’s like a trampoline, when the jumper is going up and down. After a normal down, the energy pops the jumper back up, at least as high as he’d been before. But if someone reaches in, touches the trampoline and says, “Here, let me help you” while “steadying” the bouncy mat or adding a push that’s out of sync with the jumper, the expected bounce doesn’t happen. Instead there’s kind of a thud, and then tiny bounces leaving the jumper sitting there needing to start over.

The economy is the jumper. There are ups and downs. But natural recoveries follow the downs, so they’re not something that needs fixing, or “help.” Left alone, a down recovers to an up pretty quickly.

When we were all on the trampoline together, "interfering" with each other,
there wasn't a lot of soaring. It was hard enough just to stay upright.
(Yes, the big kid on the trampoline is me.)

Economists might call the trampoline effect an L-shaped recession and recovery. Instead of the expected parabola (a U-shape), the down is followed by a sideways stutter. I’ve written about this here.

An L-shaped recession looks like this, instead of
the mirror-image parabola you'd expect.

In terms of the trampoline, when Obama said we would just have to get used to less growth and high unemployment, because that was the new norm, he was saying, “You’ve got to get used to less bounce in the trampoline; it’s just flatter now and doesn’t go up the way it used to. But imagine how bad it would be if we weren’t doing all the help we’re doing?”

Then Trump comes in and blows that theory away. “Get your hands off, and let’s see this thing fly again.”

One economic indicator is unemployment. This one has the L-shape upside down, since high unemployment is bad and low is good. You can see that the pre-recession low was 4.7 in November 2007. That level wasn’t seen again until November 2016, nine years later later (coincidentally coinciding with the end of the Obama presidency). Even that was somewhat distorted by people leaving the workforce because of chronic unemployment. So, even though there was some steady improvement following a high of 10.0 in October 2009, recovery to the beginning level was still 7 years away. A parabolic recovery (what happens naturally, without interference), should have been an approximate mirror image of the spike, which wouldn't have risen so high and could have recovered around June 2011. Obama's interference added on half a decade of additional pain.

F.R.E.D. unemployment data, found here

It wasn’t a chronic “new economy” to get used to; it was interference taking the energy out of the economy's natural ability to recover. Eventually, businesses and investors had to do what a trampoline jumper does: put some initial energy in again, and get a little going at a time, to try to overcome the interference. And the promise of less interference—lower taxes, less regulation—that accompanied the 2016 election campaign promises followed by policy changes led to economic soaring in the form of unemployment rates not seen in 50 years. And the newer unemployment numbers include hundreds of thousands of people returning to the workforce, which could have made unemployment numbers seem higher.

In other words, in Obama’s L-shaped recovery, unemployment was higher than statistics showed, and under Trump, unemployment is lower than statistics show.

We’ve seen this before. Remember the malaise speech by Jimmy Carter? We just have to get used to high unemployment, high inflation, and low economic growth, because that’s the new normal. But then Reagan came in and cut taxes. And then the economy took off again.

Back in 2011, 32 years after President Carter’s malaise speech, Laura Ingraham put together an audio montage of that speech and Obama’s, to emphasize the repetition. It’s as though they used the same speech writer. 

Why would we resign ourselves to malaise, when we know it’s the interference that’s causing it, and all we need to do is get government out of the way?

What did Obama do to interfere? He grew government, attempted a government takeover of entire sectors of the economy, such as healthcare—and, temporarily, the automotive industry. He raised taxes. He imposed regulations galore. He made planning difficult for businesses, whose plans could be swallowed up in a suddenly imposed new rule change.

He never saw a problem (often government-caused problems) that he didn’t want to "fix" with bigger government.

What did President Trump do to stop the interference? Nowhere near getting government totally out of its overreach habit. But what he has done so far is working:

·         Cut corporate taxes—down from highest rate in the world of 35% to a more middle-range 21%.

·         Cut tax rates for individuals and families (which could, however, expire in 2025).

·         Cut regulations. In his first year, regulatory activity decreased 74%.

o   Dodd-Frank rollbacks affected regional and community banks.

o   EPA regulations that harmed businesses were cut.

o   Departments of Education and Labor are doing some deregulating.

The Trump presidency brought a 74% drop in new regulations its first year.
Chart found here.

·        I saw a quote on Facebook today, along with a question about what we thought of it:

I submit that the government exists to provide for the needs of the people, and when it comes to choice between profits and property rights on the one hand and human welfare on the other, there should be no hesitation whatsoever in saying that we are going to place the human welfare consideration first and let property rights and financial interests fare as best they may.—J. S. Woodsworth

So I responded with the Spherical Model answer:

Government does not exist to provide the needs of the people. The proper role of government is to protect life, liberty, and property. Attempts to do anything else will result in unintended consequences, usually the exact opposite of the stated goal.

If our government would resist interfering to “provide for the needs of the people,” or any other intention beyond its proper role, we’d have a lot more soaring economy, and a lot less thud and malaise.

I’m in favor of soaring.

L-Shaped Recovery and the Trampoline Effect

Some years ago, I talked about government interference affecting the economy. There’s a pair of posts: Parabolas and The Trampoline Effect. When there are downturns in the economy, there’s usually a natural rebound, forming a parabola, like a U. The bounce back usually reaches and exceeds the start of the fall pretty quickly. But if government steps in to “help,” or interfere, then you get something more like “help” on a trampoline, when someone steps in purportedly make the bounce higher. That help disturbs the natural up and down, and takes the energy out of the bottom of the bounce, so you don’t go back up. You just sort of stumble, and the trampoline flattens. And then you have to get going again from scratch.

In economist terms, this is an L-shaped recession recovery, instead of the usual U-shaped recovery.

Here’s the definition: 

L shaped recession—refers to a period of stagnant recovery after initial fall in GDP. Even though technically the economy may have positive growth (e.g. 0.5%) it still feels like a recession because growth is very slow and unemployment high.

You know the phrase, about the scariest words: “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” Government’s role isn’t to interfere, or intervene. It’s to set up the background for free enterprise to take place. 

Government isn't the only interference that can cause an L-shaped recession, but it's the usual suspect. When we look at the past decade, we see an L-shaped recession/recovery, and it wasn't just bad luck; it was government caused. 

There are a number of measures of how well the economy is doing. Growth in GDP is one. In fact, a recession has a specific definition related to GDP: "a period of temporary economic decline during which trade and industrial activity are reduced, generally identified by a fall in GDP in two successive quarters."

The converse is that two successive quarters of growth, however minimal, signify the end of the recession. But in an L-shaped recession, getting to technical recovery likely takes longer, probably over a year, rather than merely months. But getting back to starting position can take much longer, multiple years.

The L-shaped recession recovery looks like this:

Such a "recovery" can take so long that various opinions may start calling it a square root-shaped recovery, meaning that, instead of ever getting back up, we should expect a new, permanent, lower growth reality. Obama and George Soros agreed on this "just the new reality" description of the 2008-2009 Great Recession. The malaise economy of Jimmy Carter was also described as a new normal that turned out not to be normal, after a bit of a Reagan tax cut.

And the Great Recession wasn’t a square root-shaped “recovery,” we now know, because the malaise of extremely low growth wasn’t permanent. It went away as soon as we had a government regime change that made necessary changes. They haven’t been extraordinary changes: lower taxes across the board, and concerted attempts to get rid of burdensome regulations.

We didn’t have to get all the way to the ideal lowest possible tax rate, just better. And we didn’t have to get rid of all burdensome regulation, just go in that direction, and stop the threat of ever more regulations that could be placed at any time, causing businesses to be wary about investing and growing. When people are free to make use of their own money, and can plan without government-induced uncertainty, that's the energy we need to get the economy moving back upward.

We can see some examples of the L-shape in various charts. A typical chart for showing recessions is GDP growth. This one, from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP)[i]

Because growth, by definition, rises, in order to see the parabolas and other shapes of recessions and recoveries, you need to turn the chart somewhat sideways, so the rise line is horizontal. The green is to show the L-shape.

Besides GDP growth, there are some other measures. One is unemployment. Here’s a comparison of recent recessions and up to five years out.  In this chart the U-shape, or parabola, is upside down, because we want unemployment to be low. It goes up during the recession and down afterward. You can see that the unemployment spike was a bit higher in 1982, but by one year out had reached its starting point, and then continued dropping. The 2009 recession went higher half a year out, had some downs and ups for a year and a half, and afterward only slowly began dropping back down, taking seven years or more to reach pre-recession rates.

It’s possible for unemployment to go down even though there are more people not employed. Unemployment is measured by taking some combination of people applying for unemployment benefits and polling. That misses people who would be looking for work in a less hopeless economy. People who can’t find work could try to get more education, or could be just staying home. They don’t get counted. So another way to look at economic vitality is the employment-to-population ratio.

This one gives us a really clear picture of the L-shaped recession/recovery. I’ve highlighted the Great Recession in green, and in yellow are a few other more typical recessions with a quick rebound. On this chart, it looks like there might be another L-shaped recession just after 1960.

Another chart that shows the L-shape is average private sector hourly earnings. The housing and banking bubbles burst in the last quarter of 2008, which precipitated the drop. They didn’t start to rise again until 2015, and we’re still quite a distance from the starting point. The source for this chart seemed certain, later in the article, that things would have been much worse without the government interference. It’s hard to show an alternative version to use for comparison, but it is my assertion that government interference caused the intensity of the problem as well as the continuation.

The 1929 market crash was similar. It was beginning to right itself within months, but then government stepped in with one intervention after another, intensifying and continuing the pain for more than a decade. It wasn’t the war that ended the depression, because there was so much to produce for the war; it was that FDR focused on the war instead of the economy, and he largely quit experimenting with ever more interventions.

There was some good news from The Heritage Foundation's 2018 Index of Economic Freedom. We used to be ranked “mostly free,” but had been less free since the beginning of the Obama administration—or maybe since the legislative takeover by Democrats two years before that. Now we’re moving back toward freedom.

The United States, ranked “mostly free,” had not been performing well in the index over the last decade. That precipitous slide has now fortunately come to a halt, with signs of renewed economic growth reinforced by major regulatory and tax reforms that elevate business confidence and investment. It is notable that the U.S. economy grew at a rate of about 3 percent in the last three quarters, something that economists said was very unlikely just a year ago. For the first time in a while, the United States isn’t just economically stronger. It has a real chance to become economically freer in the coming years.

We’ve had two additional quarters of higher growth since that assessment last February. So the news is even better.

When somebody interferes with your jump back up on a trampoline, it takes some regathering your balance and re-energizing your jump. And that gets harder when the “friend” keeps their hand on the trampoline. But once they get out of the way, the energy you put into the jump gets you rising again.

It’s good that happens in the economy too. When we move closer to a free market, not only do we become more prosperous, we become more free.

_______________________________
[i] CBPP is the source for the remaining graphs in this piece, although some have my marks on them.

As I've Said Before

Sometimes it’s worth saying things again. The economy changes, but economic principles don’t. So some of what I’ve written can be said again and apply as well today.

I’ve posted a couple of collections of economic “best of” posts:

·         In June of 2013, Best of the Spherical Model, Part II 

·         In March of 2015, More of the Best, Part III 

Among these are some that I think are repeating in full. These two go together: “Parabolas,” from November 2011, and “The Trampoline Effect,” from March 2012.  When we’re in the longest malaise (being called a tepid recovery) since the Great Depression, maybe it’s worth reviewing these.

Parabolas

Natural paraabolic shape
of a recession and recovery

With recessions, the rule is: what goes down must come back up. The natural shape of a recession is a parabola. There’s a sharp drop to as low as it’s going to go, and then the direction changes upward during recovery. If it is allowed to follow the natural course of events, the recovery will essentially mirror the drop—and then keep going up. 

This is a concept my sons, Economic Sphere and Political Sphere, have been sharing with me from time to time. I don’t have the economic math skills to reproduce all the math logic for you, unfortunately. But I think the basic concept will do. Recessions happen because the market needs to correct, from a bubble or maybe a natural disaster--something that interferes with the natural long-term aggregate growth of the free market. But once there’s a drop, then a naturally growing market returns.  

Political Sphere shared an article from Forbes about the concept that recessions follow a natural course—unless interfered with. The article makes that point that the excuse “this time is different” is never true. 

L-shaped recession, natural
recovery is prevented

Real trouble happens when there is interference, usually intended to “help.” According to Wikipedia, one of the shapes a recession can take is the L shape. In this one, the sharp drop happens just as you would expect. But then, instead of bouncing on the bottom and coming back up, the level just sort of dribbles along horizontally near the bottom. Other names for this are “depression,” “lost decade,” and “malaise.” These are all terms beginning to be applied to our current L-shaped recession. They are terms that applied to FDR’s Great Depression as well. 

What is it that causes this recession to be different, to languish at the bottom instead of bouncing back? Government interference. How do we know? 

This is maybe more than you wanted, but here’s a basic formula: 

Y = C + I + G + NX 

Y is GDP (production) in actual dollars.

C is consumption, which is a function of Y-T (taxes).

I is investment, or infusion of new capital (not spending on used materials, or stock exchanges).

G is government spending.

NX is net exports. 

Government can affect Y by increasing spending or raising or lowering taxes. More taxes means less money for consumers to spend, and less taxes means more money for consumers to spend. Indirectly investment will be affected if Y decreases, when there is less profit to be made. But mainly the other way government can change Y is by increasing government spending.  

I had to ask Economic Sphere why the formula includes “+G” instead of “-G.” In theory, G is just another product consumers (we the people) spend money on. To some degree it’s necessary. So the amount spent on G is just another part of the measure of GDP. However, when spending on government is too high—includes debt—it temporarily appears that the G portion of the economy shows actual growth in GDP. But that is an illusion.

natural ups and downs of
business cycle show a sine wave

It appears, in the short run, that government spending (or stimulus) increases Y. But Y’s rate of growth is, in a natural free market, fairly constant. There is fluctuation, an ongoing sine wave, or little rises and dips, but you can draw a line through that at approximately the natural rate of growth (maybe somewhere near 4%). Government spending can’t change that. It doesn’t affect aggregate supply; it only affects aggregate demand. So it may appear for a time that it has affected growth, but there will be a natural pull back to the equilibrium point where aggregate supply and demand intersect. There will be a correction. So the more government does to try to make the market go up, the greater will be the eventual correction back to the natural rate of growth. 

The longer and greater the government over-expenditures, the more drastic will be the inevitable correction. 

So what happens if government sees that inevitable drop and tries to prevent it—with more government spending? It causes an even greater drop. If the measures are taken after the drop, presumably in an effort to stop more drop or cause a rise, it interferes with the natural recovery. That is what we’re seeing now. 

Greater government spending at a time when great government spending already caused the dip is like hitting the economy over the head and beating it down. Every new interference, every new beat down, leaves the economy languishing down at the bottom, unable to rise because of the repeated drop-causing interferences. When they say, “The economy was in much worse shape than we thought; imagine how bad a shape we’d be in if we had done nothing,” you can know for certain that things are worse because of what they did in their ignorant attempts to control a natural force.  

If government wants to have a positive effect on GNP, it needs to cut spending. Since it can’t (won’t) cut to zero, the next best thing would be to cut to the bare bones of the enumerated powers of the Constitution. At the same time, lowering rather than raising taxes will help. Both lowered government spending and lowered taxes leave more money available for growth.

The Trampoline Effect

The other night I was reading something about the recovering economy—a recovery so tepid we can’t perceive it; instead we must take government’s word for it. Never comforting. And the reading led me to talk with my son Political Sphere about the concept that, the deeper the recession, the stronger the following recovery. I wrote about this principle with more detail in “Parabolas” on November 21^st.

So, we were discussing this concept, and Political Sphere unveiled what he calls the Trampoline Effect. On a trampoline, the harder you come down (from a higher or heavier fall), the higher and more powerful the bounce back up. But if a big brother (yes, he worded it that way, with plenty of extra meanings) steps in to “help,” it doesn’t help. It usually disturbs the bounce, taking the energy out of it, and you end up with buckled knees and a few small bounces fading into flatness.

photo from trampoline.com

Picture the difference between a parabola (the natural down and back up bounce) and what is euphemistically referred to as an L-shaped recovery, but is really just the dribble that happens from interference in the bounce.

Big Brother “helping” is the government stepping in, taking actions that interfere with the energy of the natural growing economy.

So, every time you hear someone say, “We had to do something,” or “Think how bad it would be if we hadn’t taken action,” translate that in your mind to the Trampoline Effect. Does the jumper need you to step in and “help” in order to bounce back up? No, that is going to happen unless you interfere.

A recovery, by definition, is coming back up to at least the starting point. If that hasn’t happened, we’re either still going down, or we’re stuck down flat because of the interference. What we need is for Big Brother to get out of the way so we can make a few small tentative bounces and put our energy into building up a good parabolic rise. But every time he steps in, he zaps the energy out of your bounce and leaves you flagging.

Flat Lining

We haven’t done an economic post in a while. Numbers came out last week, at the end of the month, and we can use those. If you’ve been reading this blog for a while, you might be familiar with The Trampoline Effect. We’re seeing that play out yet again, or still.

Growth was an essentially negligible .1 percent for the first quarter of 2014. By comparison, the average growth during recovery-from-recession quarters since that started getting measured in the 1960s is 4.1%. Average quarterly growth during the Obama presidency, which counts technically as an ongoing “recovery,” is 2.2%. In other words, the growth indicator is half what you’d expect if the economy is in recovery.

Employment is another indicator of recovery. The quarterly report looks positive; down by .4% to 6.3%. There are some provisos, however. The report is that 288,000 people were hired in April. However, simultaneously, estimates show 800,000 people dropped out of the work force—so they’re not counted in the unemployment figures anymore.

These are estimates. There’s a margin of error of around 300,000. So we get a better idea of the real picture averaging out several months. March showed an increase of 500,000 joining the labor force. If you take the two months together, you get an average of 150,000 leaving the labor force for each of those months, which is probably closer to the truth. But if it makes you feel a lot better than only 150,000 a month are so discouraged they are no longer even looking for work, you’re probably a little warped (or probably an Obama acolyte).

Full employment is traditionally considered 5% or better. There’s always some, because there are always individuals changing, or graduating from college and starting out, or deciding to start or stop an entrepreneurial enterprise, etc. So 5% means, if you’re a job seeker, you’ll probably be able to find a job, given a reasonable list of skills and good work ethic. The rate was 4.7% around the time of the 9/11 attack in 2001. That caused a fair amount of economic and social upheaval. Still, the highest annual unemployment was 6% in 2003, garnering a great deal of complaints from the democrats. It dropped down below full employment levels within a year.

You’ll recall that the current recession hit in late 2008, while Bush was still president (but two years into having Congress controlled by the democrats). Unemployment suddenly spiked to 5.8%. Then Obama and company took over—and it "recovered" to 9.3% in 2009, and “recovered” further in the wrong direction to 9.6% in 2010. It has slowly been dropping since—still lingering well above the post-9/11 economic recession that was so unacceptable at the time, six years into this mythical “recovery.”

The reason we need to combine this unemployment report with the number leaving the labor market is that the unemployment percentage is becoming less and less accurate. That number only counts those currently qualifying for unemployment compensation, plus a certain number added in based on phonecall polling. If someone no longer gets unemployment, they are not counted. We know the percentage of the population gainfully employed is going down—now 62.8%, the lowest it has been since the 1970s malaise. Maybe you remember that time, when President Carter gave a speech telling us to expect this to be the new normal.

Fortunately, Carter was wrong; that was not the new normal. That was the normal result of government interference policies. After a couple of years of Reagan removing impediments, growth and prosperity ensued, as expected.

Recessions are parabolic; when economic indicators fall, they naturally rise back up. However, there’s a trampoline effect; if government “helps,” it takes the energy out of the recover, so it doesn’t bounce back up, but dribbles along at pretty nearly a flat line, sometimes referred to as an L-shaped recovery.

This employment-population ratio illustrates
the L-shaped "recovery," from here

What is the solution—every time? Get government to stop interfering. Allow the hard-working, enterprising, creative population that is our greatest resource to do its thing, unhindered.

We know those in the current administration are not interested in an actual recovery; those power mongers benefit from a larger populace that feels helpless and turns to government for “help.” They will lie about and spin the numbers just enough to persuade those not paying attention to believe they are doing what they can under difficult circumstances—so they can keep getting elected. They hide the fact that this is the worst "recovery" since the Great Depression--which also lingered because of government interference.

We need to break through that haze and let people know—it doesn’t have to be this way. We can have freedom, prosperity, and civilization. We know how. We need to get those who are thwarting us out of power, and find followers of our founders to replace them.

Poster Household

A couple of days ago Greg Mankiw’s economics blog posted a chart showing the ratio of the population that is employed, from 2004 through the first quarter of 2012. You can see the plunge from early 2008 through the end of 2009. A normal recovery from a recession would, by definition, return to approximately the pre-plunge level (see my posts Parabolas and The Trampoline Effect). Clearly that has not happened.

EMRATIO chart found here

This is a better picture of the recession and unemployment rate than the doctored numbers the administration has been feeding to the sycophantic media. This picture is what we’re experiencing.

I know we can’t extrapolate accurately from one anecdote, but the Spherical Model household has been a good candidate for the poster family for the Obama economy (taking into account that the plunge began before Obama took over). My sense is that we’re not alone in our experiences (even though our numbers may be higher than most).

For part of 2011 we had nine people living in our household: eight adults and one toddler. Of the adults, three were employed: one well employed, one working two jobs but still seriously underemployed, and one part-time summer job. That left five unemployed job hunters—none of whom could get unemployment payments, nor appeared on government charts. That happens when you go from full-time student or full-time mom, or part-time worker who quit to move—all common situations.

But the government measures unemployment by how many are getting unemployment checks. If eligibility runs out, or they give up trying, or take time to try to develop an entrepreneurial business, these unemployed people stop being counted.

If they take a temporary low-paying job, because there are many good things that come from being a paid worker rather than an unemployed job seeker, they disappear from the statistics, but they don’t exactly exemplify recovery. We’re the poster household for this situation as well.

We went down to eight people (seven adults) at the end of summer when my daughter, Social Sphere, returned to college, where she had lined up another part-time job. By then three more family members started working part time at low pay, leaving only two technically unemployed (but not counted), but actually still six looking for better employment.

People who don’t expect government to solve their problems eventually improve their situation in just about any circumstances. My son Political Sphere will start law school in the fall, so, while the income situation will continue to be a problem not measured in the government statistics, we expect much better prospects for his family in about three years. And Mrs. Political Sphere, while underemployed, has been able to find some work recently, and the job should transfer after their move.

Economic Sphere entered the US Army and is halfway through bootcamp. He has a six-year commitment, or possibly a career, after which he has top secret clearance, another language, computer experience, and other experiences that should keep him employable.

So the household begins to empty out. Eventually we can call it recovery, although that will take years. Would we want four more years of this? No. I’d really prefer opportunities and prosperity for us and all our children. And I think I could also get used to quiet and a clean house—interrupted by frequent visits. Family continues to be the basic unit of society, and when family functions well, it is much better at leading to the positive ends we seek than government could ever be.

Parabolas

natural parabolic shape
of a recession and recovery

With recessions, the rule is: what goes down must come back up. The natural shape of a recession is a parabola. There’s a sharp drop to as low as it’s going to go, and then the direction changes upward during recovery. If it is allowed to follow the natural course of events, the recovery will essentially mirror the drop—and then keep going up. 

This is a concept my sons, Economic Sphere and Political Sphere, have been sharing with me from time to time. I don’t have the economic math skills to reproduce all the math logic for you, unfortunately. But I think the basic concept will do. Recessions happen because the market needs to correct, from a bubble or maybe a natural disaster--something that interferes with the natural long-term aggregate growth of the free market. But once there’s a drop, then a naturally growing market returns.  

Political Sphere shared an article from Forbes about the concept that recessions follow a natural course—unless interfered with. The article makes that point that the excuse “this time is different” is never true. 

L-shaped recession, natural
recovery is prevented

Real trouble happens when there is interference, usually intended to “help.” According to Wikipedia, one of the shapes a recession can take is the L shape. In this one, the sharp drop happens just as you would expect. But then, instead of bouncing on the bottom and coming back up, the level just sort of dribbles along horizontally near the bottom. Other names for this are “depression,” “lost decade,” and “malaise.” These are all terms beginning to be applied to our current L-shaped recession. They are terms that applied to FDR’s Great Depression as well. 

What is it that causes this recession to be different, to languish at the bottom instead of bouncing back? Government interference. How do we know? 

This is maybe more than you wanted, but here’s a basic formula: 

Y = C + I + G + NX 

Y is GDP (production) in actual dollars.

C is consumption, which is a function of Y-T (taxes).

I is investment, or infusion of new capital (not spending on used materials, or stock exchanges).

G is government spending.

NX is net exports. 

Government can affect Y by increasing spending or raising or lowering taxes. More taxes means less money for consumers to spend, and less taxes means more money for consumers to spend. Indirectly investment will be affected if Y decreases, when there is less profit to be made. But mainly the other way government can change Y is by increasing government spending.  

I had to ask Economic Sphere why the formula includes “+G” instead of “-G.” In theory, G is just another product consumers (we the people) spend money on. To some degree it’s necessary. So the amount spent on G is just another part of the measure of GDP. However, when spending on government is too high—includes debt—it temporarily appears that the G portion of the economy shows actual growth in GDP. But that is an illusion. 

natural ups and downs of
business cycle show a sine wave

It appears, in the short run, that government spending (or stimulus) increases Y. But Y’s rate of growth is, in a natural free market, fairly constant. There is fluctuation, an ongoing sine wave, or little rises and dips, but you can draw a line through that at approximately the natural rate of growth (maybe somewhere near 4%). Government spending can’t change that. It doesn’t affect aggregate supply; it only affects aggregate demand. So it may appear for a time that it has affected growth, but there will be a natural pull back to the equilibrium point where aggregate supply and demand intersect. There will be a correction. So the more government does to try to make the market go up, the greater will be the eventual correction back to the natural rate of growth. 

The longer and greater the government over-expenditures, the more drastic will be the inevitable correction. 

So what happens if government sees that inevitable drop and tries to prevent it—with more government spending? It causes an even greater drop. If the measures are taken after the drop, presumably in an effort to stop more drop or cause a rise, it interferes with the natural recovery. That is what we’re seeing now. 

Greater government spending at a time when great government spending already caused the dip is like hitting the economy over the head and beating it down. Every new interference, every new beat down, leaves the economy languishing down at the bottom, unable to rise because of the repeated drop-causing interferences. When they say, “The economy was in much worse shape than we thought; imagine how bad a shape we’d be in if we had done nothing,” you can know for certain that things are worse because of what they did in their ignorant attempts to control a natural force.  

If government wants to have a positive effect on GNP, it needs to cut spending. Since it can’t (won’t) cut to zero, the next best thing would be to cut to the bare bones of the enumerated powers of the Constitution. At the same time, lowering rather than raising taxes will help. Both lowered government spending and lowered taxes leave more money available for growth.