Brian Wesbury in the WSJ: 'The Economy Is Fine (Really)'

Photo of Tom Blumer.
  • Bookmark and Share

I have referred to Mr. Wesbury's work frequently. That's because he has been, as he is today, a sober voice standing up to Old Media-driven economic hysteria with those stubborn things known as facts.

Wesbury first caught my attention when he expressed alarm in late 2005 that 43% of the country thought we were in a recession -- not about to go into one, actually in one. That same poll metric reads 35% today.

There wasn't a recession then, and odds are, as Wesbury notes, we're not near one now.

Here are some snips from his Wall Street Journal column today, making a number of points about the current economy, and reminding us that inflation has not been relegated to irrelevancy. He doesn't extensively call out Old Media's gloomy economic coverage, but I don't doubt for a minute that he considers it a major negative factor (bolds are mine):

It is hard to imagine any time in history when such rampant pessimism about the economy has existed with so little evidence of serious trouble.

..... housing is now a small share of GDP (4.5%). And it has fallen so much already that it is highly unlikely to drive the economy into recession all by itself. Exports are 12% of the economy, and are growing at a 13.6% rate. The boom in exports is overwhelming the loss from housing.

..... incomes rose 3.9% faster than inflation in the year through September.

..... the over-reaction to very spotty negative news is astounding. For example, Intel's earnings disappointed, creating a great deal of fear about technology. Lost in the pessimism is the fact that 20 out of 24 S&P 500 technology companies that have reported earnings so far have beaten Wall Street estimates.

Models based on recent monetary and tax policy suggest real GDP will grow at a 3% to 3.5% rate in 2008, while the probability of recession this year is 10%. This was true before recent rate cuts and stimulus packages. Now that the Fed has cut interest rates by 175 basis points, the odds of a huge surge in growth later in 2008 have grown. The biggest threat to the economy is still inflation, not recession.

..... What Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently estimated as a $100 billion loss on subprime loans would represent only 0.1% of the $100 trillion in combined assets of all U.S. households and U.S. non-farm, non-financial corporations.

..... The irony is almost too much to take. Yesterday everyone was worried about excessive consumer spending, a lack of saving, exploding debt levels, and federal budget deficits. Today, our government is doing just about everything in its power to help consumers borrow more at low rates, while it is running up the budget deficit to get people to spend more. This is the tyranny of the urgent in an election year and it's the development that investors should really worry about. It reads just like the 1970s.

The good news is that the U.S. financial system is not as fragile as many pundits suggest. Nor is the economy showing anything other than normal signs of stress. Assuming a 1.5% annualized growth rate in the fourth quarter, real GDP will have grown by 2.8% in the year ending in December 2007 and 3.2% in the second half during the height of the so-called credit crunch.

I'm guessing that Wesbury's 1.5% estimate for fourth quarter GDP growth is low -- possibly very low. We'll find out Wednesday morning at 8:30. If the news is better than expected, we'll get to see how Old Media spins its way into "but it's bad now" mode.

Cross-posted, with minor revisions, at BizzyBlog.com.

—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Economy

Mr. Wesbury is like most people in not addressing the real issue. His point is like saying Gramma is fine........she is just dead.

Ask a person with a loan for a 100,000 dollar house, they can not make payments on, working 2 jobs at minimum wage, 2 kids needing 1000 dollar crap for modern school, natural gas, gasoline and now grocery prices eating their entire paycheck and you need a tooth filled and about pass out finding that now cost $100..........ask them if the "economy" is fine.

If one is making 50 to 100 thousand a year, then the economy is fine as you have the extras like Mr.Wesbury to deal with life as your welfare package at work in retirement, insurance and withheld taxes leave you that 5 grand to deal with costs. 5 grand to around 100 million working poor and retired Americans is 1/3rd of the money they are existing on.

I have explained here in detail what "economy" is and that America has different economies within the broad picture. A vast chunk of working Americans are being screwed in this "economy" and when I hear a Wesbury making points and then acting like those points are really not that important it does disappoint and frustrate me.

The gauge of an economy is not who rich people are, but how WELL THE POOR are able to deal with life and the shock of emergency expenses.
Talk to a poor person who finds that Detroit has scammed the nation by putting in double dip tax deductions where used cars are wrecked and the difference deducted all so Detroit can turn out new cars putting poor people into debt how fun it is that there are no longer $300 chevies and $12,000 starter homes........oh because the eastern real estate tycoons ran up the price on homes to soak up all the money they were printing for war and ward off depression in selling all that debt to China.

The Wall Street Journal could do the world a favor in actually firing Wesbury so he could feel the pinch and they tell the world the economy was great. The 100 million low income and low retirement people are not misguided. They have it RIGHT and it is people who do not have existential experience in that other America screwed over by bankers messing up free trade and importing border busters who know what the economy is for them.

Or WSJ just have me write a series explaining this to your million dollar Long Island employees, I will do it for 1/3rd what you are paying Wesbury who does not understand economics, economies or the difference between radical socialism causing this and inflation.

God bless and thanks

 

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

Brian Wesbury

Lame Cherry - I believe Brian Wesbury works full time as an economist for a private investment firm near Chicago.  At least he did in 2007, anyway.  The WSJ probably has him write guest editorials from time to time.

Although you make valid points about the stress of being poor in the USA, Wesbury's article was about the total USA economy.  I don't think he, or anyone else, is dismissive of poor people.  He is simply writing a report about the big economic picture instead of the smaller, highly defined picture of the economy that you are so passionate about.

Since the 1960's at least $1 trillion has been spent on poverty programs.  The number of poor Americans has come down from about 20% to about 14%.  I think you would agree that there are no obvious solutions for many of the remaining causes of poverty.  A significant majority of America's poor are young single mothers and children, recent immigrants and their children, high school dropouts, people with mental disorders, people with drug or alcohol issues, and people with criminal issues.

I think we can find some solace in the fact that each year the Census Bureau reports that America's poor people have more disposable income and own more homes and cars than any other group of poor people in the entire world.  Food is certainly not an issue.  America's poorest families are almost three times more likely to be obese than America's richest families.

In my mind the best way forward is to continuously motivate America's most energetic, productive, and creative citizens to build new companies, to create new wealth, and to generate new tax revenues. 

That's pretty much what Wesbury thinks, too, so I guess I've pulled you all the way back to the point you started from.     

LC your post is indeed

LC your post is indeed entertaining, however citations would be appreciated. I would like to see the percentages of 2 children families with the primary wage earners making minimum wage in a $100K house that they actually have a mortgage on. I don't think that is realistic but feel free to prove me wrong. Most families I know of that gross approx $30K/yr in single parent homes; and $50-$60K/hr in dual-parent homes with one or two children currently rent and do not own--with their apt rents at approx $900 per month

I have thought the credit

I have thought the credit crunch has been overblown by many pundits and media know-it-alls.  Sure, those who find themselves in an upside down mortgage have a problem, but the impact on the overall economy has seemingly been overstated.  I believe this is Wesbury's point, and I think it's a good one.  And I don't get this "it's tough to be poor" attitude.  Of course, it's tough to be poor, that's why parents want their kids to go to college or learn a trade, etc.   Poor people are going to exist in any economy.  I do not know of an economic system ever practiced in the history of human beings time on this planet which has not resulted in relatively extensive poverty.  In fact, the U.S. system has actually produced some of the richest "poor" people in the world and fewer of them.  No, it's not easy for single working mothers or for those who are between jobs, but that is not the fault of the economic system or any lack of "tax the rich" policies, and it is not the responsibility of the federal government to attempt to eradicate poverty forever.  That is the fiscal equivalent of a dog chasing its tail.