Gales of Creative Destruction and the Need for Aggressive Investment post-Pandemic

In the 3Q of 2018, the economy created 67,000 jobs.
In the 3Q of 2019, it created 11,000 jobs.
In the three quarters between, it created 811,000, 525,000 and 182,000 jobs.
That sounds innocuous enough but those are net.

In the 3Q 2019, the economy destroyed 7.3 million jobs and created 7.3 million jobs and the difference between them was this tiny sum of 11,000 jobs. This is what gales of creative destruction look like.

In the last six weeks, 30 million people have filed for unemployment. This quarter the economy is likely to destroy closer to 50 million jobs than it's typical 7-ish million.

What does this mean? To counter this unprecedented level of destruction we will need unprecedented levels of creation. One tactic is to preserve businesses that will hire back once this is over. The other - complementary - tactic is to launch a tsunami of startups, turn cheap money (interest rates are absurdly low) into precious jobs. A third tactic is to literally create new infrastructure, knowledge and industries.

We should stop having infrastructure weeks and start an infrastructure decade - included in that the creation of green energy solutions that hasten the obsolescence of oil. Also, start spending as much research and development for federal departments like Housing, Transportation, Energy, Interior, and Education as we do on Defense.

We have a huge economic problem that will only get more complicated. Like any problem, we'll have to create our way out of it. When you have more destruction, the solution is more creation.

In the Long Run We Are All Rich: What Negative Interest Rates Mean for Good Policy

The Dutch have records that go back to the time of Martin Luther - 500 years. In that entire time, including the European settlement of continents, 30-year religious war, the end of knighthood, serfs, industrial revolution, the car, telegraph, telephone, TV, computer, modern medicine, introduction of democracy .... interest rates never went negative. Until about 2 years ago.

Now the Dutch, the EU, Japan and even the US (for the US still only briefly and after adjusting for inflation) have all had and / or have negative interest rates.

This is huge.

One of the things I've not seen anyone talk about is how valuable it makes investments.

Imagine that you start with $100 income. Each year that income grows by 5%. You want to price this income stream for the next 50 years.

If you assume that interest rates are +1%, then you discount next year's income by that amount. $100 next year is worth only $99 this year. You discount the amount by 1%. And of course the further out in time, the more you discount that income stream.

If you assume that interest rates are negative 1%, -1%, you actually increase next year's income. $100 next year is worth $101.

What is the price of a 50 year income stream growing at 5% a year when interest rates ....

are 1%? $1,903.

are -1%? $1,014,861,688

It's the difference between two thousand and one billion.

What does this mean? The lower interest rates are, the bigger the reward for investments now. What kind of investments will pay off long term? R&D. Education. Startups. Infrastructure.

As we come out of this incredibly painful downturn, we should invest money as if we were drunk or billionaires. This will do two things. One, it will employ a lot of people right now in construction of infrastructure, R&D, teaching and working in or managing startups. Two, it will generate future income that is worth more than it ever has before.

Negative interest rates signal a wonderful thing. It means that the future has never been more valuable and with capital so cheap, never a better reason to invest in this future. In a twist on Keynes, in the long run, we are all rich.

Bigger is Better

It seems a requirement of modern politics that Democrats criticize big business and Republicans criticize big government.

There is one problem with these shibboleths, these tests of the faithful: they ignore how the interplay between big government and big business has made us prosperous. History suggests that any politician successful at impeding either government or business will effectively slow economic progress.

Some people know the amazing story of Elisha Gray arriving at the patent office just hours after Alexander Graham Bell with his patent application for the phone. Bell went on to fame and fortune and Gray to a life of anonymity. There’s more to it, though. Our founding fathers were intent on creating an accessible, affordable patent system. One might even say it was democratic. Fewer people know that the Italian Antonio Meucci had invented the telephone years – not just hours – before Bell but could not afford to patent it through Italy’s expensive patent system. Had Italy been more visionary about subsidizing the work of its inventors by making it cheaper to file for a patent, it may have hosted the myriad, great inventions that defined the decades around 1900 or had the equivalent of Bell Labs from which communication satellites and transistors emerged as catalyst for huge industries. Our government enabled invention.

In his book The Rise and Fall of American Growth, Robert Gordon shares this story of Bell, Gray and Meucci and gives a host of other examples of government and business interacting to create prosperity.

During the second world war, the federal government led initiatives to increase industrial capacity. The government invested capital equal to half the capital that existed at the start of the war, capital in the form of factories and machine tools (which doubled during the war). Even better was the problem-solving that resulted in better production methods. During the war, Kaiser initially took 8 months to complete a ship; they accelerated that to just a few weeks by the next year. A plane factory of Ford's increased its rate of 75 planes per month in February of 1943 to 432 per month by August of 1944. By D-Day, the Germans could launch only 319 aircraft; the US and its allies launched 12,837. American factories won the war.

After the war, the government turned all this over to private companies. Armed with these investments in capital and knowledge, these companies began making consumer products like cars and TVs. Before the second world war, the economy had lurched in and out of recession. After, it took off. Government regulations helped raise wages and government investment helped raise productivity. Workers both made and bought these new products.

Eisenhower had been a solider during the first world war and was part of a group transporting vehicles across the US. It took them 62 days to go from coast to coast. Head of the Allies’ conquering army, he experienced first-hand the German autobahn and was amazed at the contrast. The interstate highway legislation Eisenhower signed increased American productivity by tens of percent.  Like the railroads the government subsidized a century earlier, the highway system gave customers and producers easier, more affordable access to products and markets. Decades earlier, life expectancy had gone up as a result of similar, local efforts to build out the infrastructure that brought safe water into homes and piped sewage out, another initiative dependent on the cooperation of government and business.

Another outcome of the second world war was increased investment in research and education. In WWII we didn't just pump unprecedented amounts of money into research but FDR asked Vannevar Bush to institutionalize that, which he did with what become the NSF (National Science Foundation) and DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). From DARPA we got the Internet which has enabled the creation of trillions in new wealth and millions of new jobs. The GI Bill was another product of the second world war and it led to a huge increase in college enrollment, creating a new generation of better educated, more productive workers.

Possibly the most important interplay between big government and big corporations comes in R&D. Research is hugely uncertain and most of it results in nothing. If it does result in something cool it may happen a decade or three later than expected. Also, not every cool thing becomes profitable. Because of this, corporations rarely finance basic research and it needs to be heavily funded by institutions like DARPA or the University of California. This research is crucial to corporations' later developments. "The parts of the smart phone that make it smart—GPS, touch screens, the Internet—were advanced by the Defense Department," as Mariana Mazzucato points out in her book The Entrepreneurial State. Corporations try to find a way to translate research that has taken one to two decades into development that takes two to four years. It's a great system and at its best we tax successful corporations to fund the next round of research which could be transformed into new products by corporations. Symantec and Qualcomm were among the new companies funded by The Small Business Innovation Research program - a program started by Ronald Reagan. Google's basic algorithm was funded with a NSF grant.

Of late, our policies seem less reflective of this interdependence. As corporations pay less in taxes the government has less money for initiatives that could help the next generation of companies and workers to prosper. Our productivity, wages and GDP were growing faster during a time when corporate tax rates were maxed out at about 50% and personal income tax rates maxed out at about 70%. The trick is to tax what is successful now to fund what will become successful next.

Government has an important job as a referee, a role Elizabeth Warren articulates well. Government has an important job of moderating wealth and income inequality. (Trump looked at the world with the biggest gap between rich and poor in history and concluded that the rich were not rich enough and the poor were not poor enough, giving the first a tax break and cutting assistance to the second. Few people would reach such a conclusion.) Those jobs of referee and moderator are important but over the long term, they are not as important as the job of collaborating with business and labor to create the next generation of technologies, products, industries and companies. It is in that direction that lies the kind of progress we had from 1900 to 2000 that increased real incomes by 8X and let us buy myriad objects like airplane tickets, personal computers and antibiotics that did not even exist at the start of the century.

The world is full of communities who would love our problem of big government and big business. Big projects are not done by small organizations. It should be a cliché to say what is too rarely said: progress is not a product of markets or democracies but rather their interaction. Strong companies and strong government go together in vibrant economies. Even within the US, the states that keep taxes and investment lower and have few big companies have lower household income and create fewer jobs. Big businesses and government agencies are not a sign that we’re off the rails. They are, instead, the way we got both the rails and the trains.

We're Uncertain Just How Much Economic Uncertainty Trump Has Added

"There are known unknowns and unknown unknowns," Rumsfeld famously said. With the incoming Trump administration we might now say, "There are certain uncertainties and uncertain uncertainties."

The stock market has rallied since Trump's election. Presumably, the reasons for this include expectations of tax cuts, stimulus spending, and deregulation. All of these add to uncertainty, though.

If Trump gets a stimulus package in the form of infrastructure spending, it will boost GDP more than if the stimulus comes in the form of tax cuts. (The tax cuts will overwhelmingly go to the rich. A guy making $500,000 a year is less likely to change his spending in response to a tax cut that puts $1,000 more in his pocket than will a guy who makes only $5,000 a year.) 

Will the stimulus - the assumed rise in deficit spending - boost the economy by 1% or by something negligible? It's uncertain because we don't really know what form the stimulus will come in.

Further complicating this, Trump has appointed Mick Mulvaney to head his Office of Management and Budget (OMB). He'll be responsible for crafting the budgets proposed to Congress. Mulvaney is a fiscal hawk who has voted against raising the debt ceiling and seems committed enough to a balanced budget that he'd shut down government for this. By contrast, Trump has promised tax cuts and boosts to defense spending and infrastructure, which will drive a big increase in the deficit.

Paul Ryan and Mick Mulvaney's desire for balanced budgets will be at odds with Donald Trump's "deficit be damned" policies. Will Trump's proposed budget deficit shrink or even become a budget surplus? It's uncertain.

Deregulation adds the most uncertainty of all. Before the Great Recession, banks were leveraged about 30 to 1. For every dollar they had in deposits, they had loaned out about $30. That gives you great returns but it makes you vulnerable to a credit crunch. Since Dodd Frank,that ratio has dropped to about 10 to 1, which makes for a much safer banking system. Now, the expectation is that a Trump administration will lower regulatory requirements and allow banks to raise that ratio again. Will the ratio go up to just, say, 12 or 15 to 1? That ratio might still be reasonably safe but raise profits nicely. Or will the ratio be allowed to rise all the way to 20 to 1 or even 30 to 1 again? That ratio will greatly raise profits .... and risk. Financial stocks could look really healthy even as the financial system gets sick. 

Will Trump deregulation give finance a little nudge or a dangerous shove? That's uncertain.

Add to this the uncertainty inherent in Trump's trade policies. Will he actually put 35% and 45% tariffs in place against Mexico and China? If he does, WTO will probably slap on retaliatory fines and this could set off a trade war. That path would cost us millions of jobs. If he only talks about trade wars but doesn't actually impose tariffs, it could "just" result in a slowdown in trade. It's uncertain.

And then there is the policy with undocumented workers. Will he actually deport 11 million people? If so, that will crush growth in aggregate demand here in the US and crash house prices. It's uncertain.

Economics is always uncertain but the Trump Administration has added more uncertainty to that than any that I can remember. And perhaps inherent in that uncertainty is an uncertainty about what Trump's victory will mean for the future identity of the Republican Party.