Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
We don’t run corporate ads. We don’t shake our readers down for money every month or every quarter like some other sites out there. We provide our site for free to all, but the bandwidth we pay to do so doesn’t come cheap. A generous donor is matching all donations of $100 or more! So please donate now to double your punch!

Trump Tax Cuts: a Little Good Old-Fashioned Crowding Out

The textbook story of what happens if the government runs a budget deficit when the economy is near its potential is that interest rates rise. Higher interest rates then reduce demand in interest sensitive sectors like residential construction, investment, and car purchases.

Higher rates also lead to a higher valued dollar. This makes U.S. goods and services less competitive internationally, which means a larger trade deficit. That also reduces demand. The result is that much or all of the demand created by the deficit is offset by the reduction in demand from this crowding out effect.

Of course the textbooks often underemphasize the intervening step. The Federal Reserve Board could act to prevent this sort of crowding out by committing to keep interest rates low. The risk of doing this is that if the economy is really near its potential, then the excess demand will quickly lead to higher inflation.

It would have been desirable in my view if the Fed had taken this risk and kept interest rates at lower levels, to see how low we could get the unemployment rate. This is especially important since the additional employment would disproportionately benefit the most disadvantaged workers, African Americans, Hispanics, people with less education, and people with a criminal record.

However, the Fed went the other way. It continued and likely accelerated its path of interest rate hikes. As a result, we have seen a sharp increase in long-term interest rates, with the 10-year Treasury bond rate rising from less than 2.2 percent a year ago to more than 3.0 percent in the most recent data.

This has had the expected results. Existing home sales peaked last November at a 5.72 million annual rate. The annual rate has since fallen by almost 400,000. (There is typically a one to two month lag between when a contract is signed and the sale, which means the peak in contracts occurred likely occurred in September, before rates began to rise.) Pending home sales show a similar pattern, with the levels reported for August down by more than 5.0 percent from last fall’s peaks. Residential construction reflects the slower pattern in sales, with housing starts down by more than 7.0 percent from the peaks last fall.

In addition to being a big factor in slowing sales, higher interest rates also reduce mortgage refinancing. In the most recent week’s data, refinancing was down more than 30 percent from year ago levels. This matters for two reasons. First, refinancing itself employs a large number of people. While it is unfortunate that people have to pay all sorts of fees when they get a mortgage, these fees do create jobs.

The other reason the falloff in refinancing matters is that homeowners typically are able to free up money when they can refinance at a lower interest rate. They typically spend at least some of this money. If people are unable to refinance since mortgage rates are too high, we will not see this boost to their income and spending.

The impact of higher interest rates on non-residential investment has always been hugely exaggerated. As it stands investment is somewhat higher than its year ago level. This means whatever negative impact higher interest rates may have had, other factors have been more than offsetting.

On the other hand, higher interest rates are having pretty much the textbook effect on the value of the dollar. The Fed’s broad index, which measures the value of the dollar against a basket of currencies of our trading partners, shows the dollar is up by around 5.0 percent from its year ago level. This rise in the dollar, coupled with a modest pickup in growth, has had the predicted effect on the trade deficit.

In the first seven months of the year the trade deficit in 2018 has been $337.9 billion. This is an increase of more than $22 billion from the deficit of $315.9 billion over the first seven months of 2017 (around 0.1 percent of GDP). The rise in the trade deficit is $4.3 billion more if we pull out petroluem products.

The preliminary data for August shows the gap is getting larger, with the deficit in goods more than $11 billion larger than the deficit for August of 2017.  This is important because it takes time for the economy to fully adjust to changes in currency values. To date, we have likely only seen a portion of the increase in the trade deficit attributable to the rise in the value of the dollar following the passage of the tax cut. If there is no reversal in the dollar’s rise, we are likely to see the deficit expand still further in the rest of 2018 and 2019.

Taking this all together, let’s say that the tax cut, coupled with the modest increases in government spending would have boosted demand by roughly one percent of GDP in the absence of any crowding out effect. The drop in residential construction is likely offsetting roughly one-fifth of this increase (0.2 to 0.25 percent of GDP). The rise in the trade deficit, may offset one half or more of the increase in demand (many other factors do come into play here). And the lower consumption assoicated with higher mortgage interest payments may eventually knock off another 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points of GDP.

Taken together, we may see pretty much all of the increase in demand from the tax cut and spending increased offset by various channels of crowding out. We could say the net is zero, but it is important to remember that the tax cut went mostly to the rich. So they are spending somewhat more than would otherwise be the case. On the other hand many moderate and middle income people may be unable to afford a home because of higher mortgage interest rates. Alternatively, because they have to pay more in mortgage interest, they have less money to spend on other things. So we will have redistributed consumption from low and middle income households to those at the top.

Of course we do have to remember that this story depends importantly on the Fed’s decision to raise rates. If the Fed instead committed to leave rates low until there was clear evidence of accelerating inflation then we may have not seen anywhere near as much crowding out. That still would not mean that giving a tax cut targeted to the rich was a good idea, but the rest of the country need not suffer as directly from the policy.

This originally appeared on Dean Baker’s blog.

More articles by:

Dean Baker is the senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. 

October 23, 2018
Patrick Cockburn
The Middle East, Not Russia, Will Prove Trump’s Downfall
Ipek S. Burnett
The Assault on The New Colossus: Trump’s Threat to Close the U.S.-Mexican Border
Mary Troy Johnston
The War on Terror is the Reign of Terror
Maximilian Werner
The Rhetoric and Reality of Death by Grizzly
David Macaray
Teamsters, Hells Angels, and Self-Determination
Jeffrey Sommers
“No People, Big Problem”: Democracy and Its Discontents In Latvia
Dean Baker
Looking for the Next Crisis: the Not Very Scary World of CLOs
Binoy Kampmark
Leaking for Change: ASIO, Jakarta, and Australia’s Jerusalem Problem
Chris Wright
The Necessity of “Lesser-Evil” Voting
Muhammad Othman
Daunting Challenge for Activists: The Cook Customer “Connection”
Don Fitz
A Debate for Auditor: What the Papers Wouldn’t Say
October 22, 2018
Henry Giroux
Neoliberalism in the Age of Pedagogical Terrorism
Melvin Goodman
Washington’s Latest Cold War Maneuver: Pulling Out of the INF
David Mattson
Basket of Deplorables Revisited: Grizzly Bears at the Mercy of Wyoming
Michelle Renee Matisons
Hurricane War Zone Further Immiserates Florida Panhandle, Panama City
Tom Gill
A Storm is Brewing in Europe: Italy and Its Public Finances Are at the Center of It
Suyapa Portillo Villeda
An Illegitimate, US-Backed Regime is Fueling the Honduran Refugee Crisis
Christopher Brauchli
The Liars’ Bench
Gary Leupp
Will Trump Split the World by Endorsing a Bold-Faced Lie?
Michael Howard
The New York Times’ Animal Cruelty Fetish
Alice Slater
Time Out for Nukes!
Geoff Dutton
Yes, Virginia, There are Conspiracies—I Think
Daniel Warner
Davos in the Desert: To Attend or Not, That is Not the Question
Priti Gulati Cox – Stan Cox
Mothers of Exiles: For Many, the Child-Separation Ordeal May Never End
Manuel E. Yepe
Pence v. China: Cold War 2.0 May Have Just Begun
Raouf Halaby
Of Pith Helmets and Sartorial Colonialism
Dan Carey
Aspirational Goals  
Wim Laven
Intentional or Incompetence—Voter Suppression Where We Live
Weekend Edition
October 19, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jason Hirthler
The Pieties of the Liberal Class
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Day in My Life at CounterPunch
Paul Street
“Male Energy,” Authoritarian Whiteness and Creeping Fascism in the Age of Trump
Nick Pemberton
Reflections on Chomsky’s Voting Strategy: Why The Democratic Party Can’t Be Saved
John Davis
The Last History of the United States
Yigal Bronner
The Road to Khan al-Akhmar
Robert Hunziker
The Negan Syndrome
Andrew Levine
Democrats Ahead: Progressives Beware
Rannie Amiri
There is No “Proxy War” in Yemen
David Rosen
America’s Lost Souls: the 21st Century Lumpen-Proletariat?
Joseph Natoli
The Age of Misrepresentations
Ron Jacobs
History Is Not Kind
John Laforge
White House Radiation: Weakened Regulations Would Save Industry Billions
Ramzy Baroud
The UN ‘Sheriff’: Nikki Haley Elevated Israel, Damaged US Standing
Robert Fantina
Trump, Human Rights and the Middle East
Anthony Pahnke – Jim Goodman
NAFTA 2.0 Will Help Corporations More Than Farmers
Jill Richardson
Identity Crisis: Elizabeth Warren’s Claims Cherokee Heritage