財經觀察 1502 --- Stimulus math (wonkish)

Stimulus math (wonkish)


Paul Krugman | November 10, 2008, 4:38 pm 
I wrote this morning’s column partly because I had a hunch that the Obama people might be thinking too small on stimulus. Now I have more than a hunch – I’ve heard an unreliable rumor! So let’s talk about stimulus math, as I see it.

Actually, before I get to the math, some concepts. Nearly every forecast now says that, in the absence of strong policy action, real GDP will fall far below potential output in the near future. In normal times, that would be a reason to cut interest rates. But interest rates can’t be cut in any meaningful sense. Fiscal policy is the only game in town.

Wait, there’s more. Ben Bernanke can’t push on a string – but he can pull, if necessary. Suppose fiscal policy ends up being too expansionary, so that real GDP “wants” to come in 2 percent above potential. In that case the Fed can tighten a bit, and no harm is done. But if fiscal policy is too contractionary, and real GDP comes in below potential, there’s no potential monetary offset. That means that fiscal policy should take risks in the direction of boldness.

So what kinds of numbers are we talking about? GDP next year will be about $15 trillion, so 1% of GDP is $150 billion. The natural rate of unemployment is, say, 5% — maybe lower. Given Okun’s law, every excess point of unemployment above 5 means a 2% output gap.

Right now, we’re at 6.5% unemployment and a 3% output gap – but those numbers are heading higher fast. Goldman predicts 8.5% unemployment, meaning a 7% output gap. That sounds reasonable to me.

So we need a fiscal stimulus big enough to close a 7% output gap. Remember, if the stimulus is too big, it does much less harm than if it’s too small. What’s the multiplier? Better, we hope, than on the early-2008 package. But you’d be hard pressed to argue for an overall multiplier as high as 2.

When I put all this together, I conclude that the stimulus package should be at least 4% of GDP, or $600 billion.
That’s twice what the unreliable rumor says. So if there’s any truth to the rumor, my advice to the powers that be (or more accurately will be in a couple of months) is to think hard – you really, really don’t want to lowball this.

From Bloomberg: Fannie Says $100 Billion Pledge From Treasury May Not Be Enough 

Fannie Mae may need more than the $100 billion in funding pledged by the U.S. Treasury to stay afloat after reporting a record $29 billion loss and confronting more difficulty in issuing and refinancing debt.

``This commitment may not be sufficient to keep us in solvent condition or from being placed into receivership,'' if there are further ``substantial'' losses or if the company is unable to sell unsecured debt, Washington-based Fannie said in a filing today with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Here is the Fannie 10-Q filed with the SEC. This statement is under "Risks Relating to Our Business" and is not a prediction from Fannie, just a statement of a possible risk. The huge loss reported today was mostly because of a reduction in deferred tax assets.

Here are a few excerpts from the Fannie section on Housing and Economic Conditions:

Growth in U.S. residential mortgage debt outstanding slowed to an estimated annual rate of 2.0% based on the first six months of 2008, compared with an estimated annual rate of 8.3% based on the first six months of 2007, and is expected to continue to decline to a growth rate of about 0% in 2009.

We continue to expect that home prices will decline 7% to 9% on a national basis in 2008, and that home prices nationally will decline 15% to 19% from their peak in 2006 before they stabilize. Through September 30, 2008, home prices nationally have declined 10% from their peak in 2006. (Our estimates compare to approximately 12% to 16% for 2008, and 27% to 32% peak-to-trough, using the Case-Schiller index.) We currently expect home price declines at the top end of our estimated ranges. We also expect significant regional variation in these national home price decline percentages, with steeper declines in certain areas such as Florida, California, Nevada and Arizona. The deteriorating economic conditions and related government actions that occurred in the third quarter of 2008 have increased the uncertainty of future economic conditions, including home price movements. Therefore, while our peak-to-trough home price forecast is at the top end of the 15% to 19% range, there is increasing uncertainty about the actual amount of decline that will occur.

So Fannie is expecting house price declines of around 32% using the Case-Shiller index.