Bush tax cuts and economic growth

In 2001 and 2003, former U.S president George W. Bush signed Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act (EGTRAA) and Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (JGTRAA). EGTRAA reduced personal income tax rates, increased child tax credit, decreased estate tax and introduced a various range of tax-favored retirement savings plans. In 2003 when EGTRAA was enacted, the Congress cut the top capital gains tax rate from 20 percent to 15 percent while the individual dividend tax rate was reduced from 35 percent to 15 percent.

Bush tax cuts are set to expire in 2011. Hence, a bold increase in marginal tax rates is expected. David Leonhardt recently asked whether the Bush tax cuts were good for economic growth amid the fact that under Bush administration, the U.S economic growth was the lowest since the World War II. Eight years of Bush administration were known for the largest expansion of federal government spending compared to the six preceding presidents. In eight years, President Bush increased discretionary federal outlays by 104 percent compared to 11 percent increase under President Clinton.

Under Bush tax cuts, the reduction in personal income tax rates was imposed across all income brackets. Tax Policy Center estimated that extending Bush tax cuts in 2011 would increase the after-tax income across all income quintiles but it differed substantially. For instance, the increase in after-tax income in the lowest quintile would represent 12.19 percent of the increase in after-tax income of the highest quintile. The average federal tax rate would decrease by 2.5 percentage points. The reduction in average federal tax rate would be the most significant for top 1 percent and 0.1 percent cash income percentile, -3.8 percentage points and -4.4 percentage points respectively. Assuming the extension of the Bush tax cuts, the average federal tax rate, which includes indvidual income tax rate, corporate income tax rate, social security, Medicare and estate tax, would be substantially lower compared to Obama Administration's FY2011 Budget Proposal. The increase in the average federal tax rate would be roughly proportional across the cash income distribution. The federal tax rate would increase by 1 percentage point for the lowest quintile and 3.1 percentage point for the top quintile. The federal tax rate would for earners in top 1 percent of cash income distribution would increase by 4.2 percentage point. The chart shows the distribution of average effective tax rates and current law and current policy of Bush tax cuts not assumed to expire in 2011. The current proposal would increase the effective tax rate across all income quintiles. The highest increase (3.3 percentage points) would hit the earners in top 20 percent of income distribution.

Effective Tax Rates: A Comparison

Source: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center Microsimulation Model

The expiration of the Bush tax cuts would substantially increase the effective tax burden across the cash income distribution. Recently, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would create a net gain of $22 billion in economic activity. Hence, allowing high-income tax cuts expire would, on impact, result in a net gain of $42 billion in economic activity which is about five times the economic stimulus from extending high-income tax cuts.

The years of the Bush administration were earmarked by the escalation of federal government spending both in absolute and relative terms. The growth in federal government spending was driven mostly by discretionary defense spending while non-discretionary federal outlays increased as well. Since 2001, the federal government spending in the Bush administration increased by 28.8 percent with a 35.7 percent growth in non-defense discretionary spending. The growth of the federal government under Bush administration was the highest since the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon. The Independent Institute compared the growth of federal government spending from Lyndon B. Johnson onwards.

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire would probably not impose a negative effect on small businesses since less than 2 percent of tax returns in the top 2 income brackets are filed by taxpayers reporting small business. William Gale contends that the Bush tax cuts significantly raised the government debt. The economic consequences of the 9/11 and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were detrimental. William Nordhaus estimated that the total cost of war in Iraq between 2003 and 2012 could exceed $1 trillion in 2002 dollars considering unfavorable and protracted cost scenario. To a large extent, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have added substantially to the increase in government spending. However, even after excluding defense outlays from the spending structure, the increase in non-defense discretionary spending exceeded the growth of the federal government spending by 5.6 percentage points. Between 2000 and 2008, the number of federal subsidy programs increased from 1,425 to 1,804 - a 26 percent increase compared to 21 percent increase during Clinton years.

The Bush tax cuts failed to result in a Laffer curve effect mostly because they were implemented alongside a bold and significant increase in federal government spending. Had a substantial reduction in government spending been enforced, the tax cuts would not place should an enormous weight in the growth of federal debt. Higher federal debt would inevitably ponder the structural fiscal imbalance. Since debt interest payments would increase, a combination of tax cuts and spending growth would stimulate investment demand, creating an upward pressure on interest rates, especially during the economic recovery when the difference between potential output and real output is expected to diminish.

Critics of the Bush tax cuts often claim that cuts amassed a growing fiscal deficit. However, in 2007, the fiscal deficit stood at 1.2 percent of the U.S GDP while in 2009, the deficit increased to 9.9 percent of the GDP as a result of $787 billion fiscal stimulus from Obama Administration. Since tax cuts were enacted in 2001 and 2003 respectively, something else is to blame for the deficit.

U.S Federal Debt: Long-Term Forecast

Source: Office of Budget and Management; author's own estimate

The main premise of the economic policy of the Bush administration had been a significant increase in federal government spending. Spending policies were mostly aimed at covering the growing cost of the Iraqi war. In addition, domestic non-defense outlays on social security and domestic priorities grew significantly, creating an upward pressue on federal debt. The growth of entitlments such as Social Security and Medicare poses a serious long-term risk regarding the sustainability of federal government spending. In the upper chart built a simple forecasting framework to estimate the long-run level of U.S federal government debt as a percent of the GDP. Surprisingly, time trend accounts for 85 percent of the variability of the share of federal debt in the GDP. A more robust framework would include the lagged dependent variable and several regressors in the set of explanatory variables to increase the share of variance explained by independent effects of regressors. The results indicate that by 2020, the federal debt could easily reach the 90 percent thresold.

The growing stock of entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare are central to understanding the looming pressure on federal budget to tackle the challenges of ageing population and demand for health care. The tax cuts imposed by the Bush administration reduced average federal tax rates across quintiles in cash income distribution. However, tax cuts were no supplemented by the reduction in federal government spending. Consequently, the growth of federal government spending increased future interest debt payments and failed to take into account the long-term pressure of Medicare and Social Security on federal budget set. Extending the Bush tax cuts would be superior to letting them expire. But lowering tax burden should nevertheless be comprehended by the reduction in federal government spending.

SKILLED IMMIGRATION AND INNOVATION

A recent paper by Jennifer Hunt (link) finds that the increase in foreign-born graduates strongly contributes to the innovation in the United States:

"In this paper I have demonstrated the important boost to innovation per capita provided by skilled immigration to the United States in 1950-2000. A calculation of the effect of immigration in the 1990-2000 period puts the magnitudes of the effects in context.

The 1990-2000 increase from 2.2% to 3.5% in the share of the population composed of immigrant college graduates increased patenting by at least 81:3 = 10:4%, and perhaps by as much as 18%. The increase in the share of post-college immigrants from 0.9% to 1.6% increased patenting by at least 10.5% and perhaps by as much as 24%. The increase from 0.30% to 0.55% in the share of workers who are immigrant scientists and engineers increased patenting by at least 13% but probably by less than 23%.

While I find evidence for the crowding-out of natives in the short run, in the long run there is evidence for the reverse: that skilled natives are attracted to states or occupations with skilled immigrants. The results hint that skilled immigrants innovate more than their native counterparts, especially if they are scientists or engineers. If correct, the result could reflect higher education of immigrants within skill categories, or positive selection of immigrants in terms of ability to innovate. However, the effect of natives is not as well identified econometrically as the effect of immigrants."

Thanks to New Economist (link) for the pointer!

U.S. POPULATION STRUCTURE: 2010-2050

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (link)

FEDERAL DEBT IN THE US (1940-2009)

Source: Office of Budget and Management (2010)

RENMIMBI APPRECIATION

Barry Eichengreen wrote a thorough defence of China's exchange rate policy response to the global demands for letting the renmimbi appreciate and thus stimulate the reduction of US trade deficit.

US Treasury Department recently launched a series of initiatives which labelled China as a currency manipulator and a true source of America's widening trade deficit and loss of manufacturing jobs. I pretty much disagree with this particular assertion. China maintains a fixed exchange rate of renmimbi against the US dollar (6.83 RMB/1 USD). True, it is a very difficult empirical task to estimate the true exchange rate of the two currencies due to the fixed exchange rate. If Chinese policymakers let the renmimbi to float freely in global currency market, estimating the real exchange rate would be an easier task.

Low exchange rate against the USD stimulated a large surplus of foreign currency reserves and a large trade surplus from a significant export advantage againist foreign exporters. China's low GDP per capita is pretty much associated with country's sizeable share of investment in national income. Gradually, as Chinese GDP per capita will grow, the share of investment in GDP will correspondingly decline.

The macroeconomic cost of renmimbi appreciation is a daunting empirical task. Earlier estimates suggest that Chinese annual growth rate might be lower by 1-1.5 percentage point. Renmimbi appreciation would also induce Chinese growth pattern shift from investment and export-driven growth to consumption-based growth. It is only a sheer guess whether Chinese policymakers will embrace lower economic growth and a shift towards domestic consumption as the main engine of growth.

However, it would be foolish to mark China as currency manipulator and an ultimate source of US trade deficit and manufacturing loss. The latter can be solely explained by a change in productivity structure which offshored many of America's jobs and created even more jobs at home. The only feasible means of reducing US trade deficit is to cut a galloping fiscal deficit which, according to Congressional Budget Office (CBO), is likely to exceed 10 percent of the GDP in the medium term. A move to free-floating renmimbi exchange rate would yield substantial benefits for the world economy. However, China did a great jobs at ignoring Western political demands without any reliance on sound economic analysis

INCOME INEQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES

Gary Becker (link) and Richard Posner (link) opened an intense debate on the issue of a growing US income inequality since 1980s onwards.

VALUE-ADDED TAX FOR AMERICA?

Dan Mitchell wrote an interesting op-ed in NY Post (link) concerning the prospects of adopting a European-style value-added tax (VAT) in the United States.

Imposing a VAT would be detrimental to economic growth and productivity performance. If the U.S imposed the VAT, its spending levels would quickly approach the European spending levels. Indeed, the VAT is already used by OECD nations. In European Union, European Commission's Directive requires each country to harmonize value-added tax rate at the level of at least 15 percent. Federal spending in the U.S has already escalated. The consequence of $787 billion of stimulus measures is high public debt. Congressional Budget Office has forecasted the public debt to approach 70 percent of the GDP by 2012 and remain constant until 2020 (link). Rising costs of health care, entitlement spending and aging population have triggered government spending (link) and tax burden on the U.S firms and households. By 2020, health care spending is expected to reach 20 percent of the U.S GDP (link). Historical figures suggest a rather glimmering fiscal scenario for the United States in the next decade. In 1965, before the VAT spread across the European community, average tax burden of EU15 reached 27.7 percent of the GDP versus 24.7 percent in America. In 2006, the average tax burden for 15 developed European countries reached 39.8 percent. In United States, where VAT has not been introduced, average tax burden in 2006 remained close to the level of 1960s - at 28 percent of the GDP. The immediate consequence of VAT introduction in Europe was a surge in government spending. From 1965 to 2006, average government spending (as a share of the GDP) in the European Union increased by 17 percentage points while in America it increased by 7 percentage points. The total increase of spending growth in Europe and America is attributed to the widespread growth of the welfare state which includes entitlement spending and a growing cost of health care.

The economics of tax system is pretty straightforward. Alan Viard of the American Enterprise Institute (link) has outlined basic features of the VAT system. Contrary to the income tax system, VAT is a consumption tax. From the economic perspective, consumption tax is less distorting to economic behavior than the income tax. A pure VAT is tax at each stage of the supply chain. The taxation of individual income is a major distortion mostly because the source of direct taxation is labor supply. Introducing a tax on labor supply creates the so-called substitution effect where lower wage (w'=w(1-t)) is offset by a decrease in working hours and an increase in leisure hours either in pure leisure time or working more in household production or in the informal sector of the economy. Higher tax wedge in net wages has been the major factor behind fewer working hours in slow-growth European countries (Italy, France, Germany, Belgium etc.). The VAT is not as damaging as the income tax since the tax rate on individual consumption is applied when the income is already earned, so that income earning is not distorted. From a pure economic perspective, consumption taxation is more appropriate than income taxation mostly because the price elasticity of consumption goods is lower than price elasticity of labor supply. The consumption tax is based on the so-called Ramsey rule which states that the optimal tax rate is the inverse of the price elasticity of demand for a particular good ((t*=1/-dQ/dP*(P/Q)). It follows that on consumption goods with lower elasticity of demand, higher tax rate should be applied since the deadweight loss is smaller than in consumption goods with high price elasticity of demand. For example, price elasticity of demand is very low in goods such as gasoline since there's no close substitutes to gasoline. On the other hand, the elasticity of demand is pretty high in goods such as Big Mac or Coca Cola since there's a lot of substitutes for these goods (Subway snacks, Pepsi etc.) and a tax rate on Big Mac or Coca Cola can easily divert consumers to consume more Subway snacks, Pepsi or other goods.

While the introduction of a VAT is less income-distorting than a direct income tax, the imposition of both tax structures is a negative effect on economic growth, productivity and employment. Aside from the harmful taxation of income, the introduction of the VAT would further hamper individual consumption, raise consumer and producer prices and harm the manufacturing activity. One advantage of the VAT is a low cost and easy way of raising revenue. In economic theory, a uniform consumption tax is preferable to the income tax mostly due to fewer distortion in generating income which is the key feature of economic growth. A VAT also avoids imposing additional penalizing disincetives to labor supply and productivity.

Congressional Budget Office (link) has recently released Budget Outlook 2010, in which it laid out future perspectives of America's fiscal policy. Assuming an exerting pressure of tax burden in the coming years, the CBO has predicted the individual income taxes to grow from 6.4 percent in 2009 to 10.9 percent of the GDP by 2020. Imposing a VAT on top of the existing income tax would further reduce real disposable income and individual consumption. If a VAT were implemented on the federal or state level, there would be a significant and immediate increase in effective tax rates. The evolution of federal effective tax rates from 1970 to 2001 (link) shows a trend of decreasing effective tax rates and a growing after-tax income in all income quintiles.

The introduction of a VAT would dramatically change the US fiscal map. An article from OECD Observer (link) shows a comparative tax revenue distribution for the U.S, Europe and Japan. Back in 1999, the U.S was the only global economic giant with tax revenue from goods and service taxation of less than 30 percent of all tax revenues. The share remained steady until now. The non-existence of the VAT in America has contained the growth of overall tax burden. In 2004, total government revenues were 32 percent of the US GDP, far below the shares of high-tax countries. In Sweden, government revenue presented 59 percent of the GDP. While the U.S tax burden, measured as a share of government revenue in GDP, stayed below the level of France (50 percent), Germany (43 percent), Italy (45 percent), the introduction of a VAT may quickly turn America into a European-style country with high tax burden and benign economic growth. The international data (link) on total tax revenue in 2007 show that total tax revenue in the U.S presented 28.3 percent of the GDP. In 2007, taxes on goods and services presented about 4.7 percent of the US GDP; about three times less the level in Sweden (12.9 percent of the GDP) and four times less the level in Denmark (16.3 percent of the GDP). If a revenue from a VAT captured approximately 9.5 percent of the US GDP, America's tax revenue from a VAT would present about 14.2 percent of the GDP (9.5+4.7=14.2) comparable with high-tax countries such as Finland, Austria or Belgium and even more than in France.

Although the VAT is an easily applied method of taxing general consumption, imposing a VAT on the federal and state level would seriously harm America's future growth, investment, personal consumption, manufacturing activity and productivity. It would make America look like a typical slow-growth European welfare state for the first time.

TEXAS VS. CALIFORNIA

There's an interesting story from Washington Examiner (link) discussing the coming economic crisis in California (which has been notably called "The Greece of America") and the flourising economy in Texas which enjoyed a decade of robust growth, low taxes, favorable demographic outlook and superior public services. Not surprisingly, unions in free labor market in Texas did not allow public sector unions extracting $100 million from taxpayers for TV-adds in defence of the status quo for public employees:

"Californians have responded by leaving the state. From 2000 to 2009, the Census Bureau estimates, there has been a domestic outflow of 1,509,000 people from California -- almost as many as the number of immigrants coming in. Population growth has not been above the national average and, for the first time in history, it appears that California will gain no House seats or electoral votes from the reapportionment following the 2010 census... Texas is a different story. Texas has low taxes -- and no state income taxes -- and a much smaller government. Its legislature meets for only 90 days every two years, compared with California's year-round legislature. Its fiscal condition is sound. Public employee unions are weak or nonexistent."

EUROPE VS. USA

In NY Times, Paul Krugman (link) wrote about the comparison of European and U.S economic model, concluding that in the last 10 years, the European model of social democracy led to higher standard of living and, compared to U.S in output per hour and standard of living, and relative convergence of European countries relative to the U.S respectively.

The real convergence is a complex mathematical and empirical issue, so I will rather outline the key patterns of GDP per capita gap between the U.S and Europe and the economic explanation of it. I downloaded the data from the IMF and composed a graph which shows the GDP per capita (PPP-adjusted) in European countries as a percentage of the U.S GDP per capita. Switzerland is the only European country whose level of GDP per capita is more than 90 percent of the U.S level. Ireland, where the output contracted by 7.5 percent in 2009 (link), was once the poorest country in the European Union. Today, its GDP per capita reached 85 percent of the U.S level. In spite of the notorious advantages of the Nordic model, the GDP per capita level of all Nordic countries (excluding Norway), is below 80 percent of the U.S level. The UK GDP per capita is also far below the U.S level (75 percent). The levels of GDP per capita of the less developed countries in European Union (Slovenia, Greece, Portugal, Czech Republic and Slovakia) are all below 62 percent of the U.S level.

Source: IMF, World Economic Outlook

The basic economic question is the length of the gap between the U.S and European countries. To answer the question, we have to set certain assumptions. So, let's assume that the U.S output will increase by 2 percent in the long run. The economic theory would predict faster growth of less developed countries, since countries with lower levels of standard of living (GDP per capita) tend to follow-up the countries with higher GDP per capita. In economic literature, that is the so-called "catch-up effect". So, what would happen if the UK economy increased by 3.5 percent in the long run. A quick estimate shows that the time gap between the UK and US is 19 years. So, what happens of the US economy increases by 2 percent in each of the next year while, at the same time, the UK GDP per capita is 75 percent of the U.S level? A fairly quick estimate shows that, if the UK GDP per capita will reach the U.S level in 10 years (although an unlikely scenario), the UK GDP per capita would have to increase by 4.9 percent each year to catch-up the U.S level of GDP per capita. If France's GDP per capita reached the U.S level in 10 years (assuming 2 percent growth in U.S GDP per capita), it would have to increase the economic growth to 5.3 percent in each of the next 10 years. If the convergence objective is set at 20 years, the French economy would still have to grow at the annual rate higher than 3 percent.

The main question is why the European countries are still behind the U.S level of GDP per capita? There are, of course, many plausible explanations. As far as the GDP per capita is concerned, the difference in the level and growth of productivity is the most important figure in setting conclusions. After all, in the long run, productivity determines the standard of living across countries.

First, the European disease is mostly the result of high tax burden. High tax rates diminished the incentives to work, since each additional hour of labor reduced worker's marginal productivity. Hence, as professor Mankiw explains, the rise of European leisure (link) is mostly the result of fewer working hours. In addition, early retirement is a common phenomena across Europe. By 2030, each worker will support one retired individual in Germany. The coming of Europe's pension crisis (link) is a consequence of generous PAYG pension systems. Lower employment-to-population ratio led to higher tax rates to finance the financial liabilities for the retired. In addition, high government spending and periodic budget deficits discouraged productivity growth.

Second, another key to the explanation of the anemic growth rates in Europe is rigidity of the labor market. In many European countries, labor costs are very high (link). If the cost of labor market entry is high, people prefer longer studying and working in the shadow economy. The shares of shadow economy are relatively high in all European countries (link). The highest rates of shadow economy are in the following countries:

1. Slovenia 27%
2. Greece 26%
3. Italy 24%
4. Spain 21%
5. Belgium 20%
6. Germany 15%
7. France 13%

Source: ATKearney (2009), Friedrich Schneider (2005)

Third, Europe's relative decline compared to the U.S, is not a consequence of the lack of R&D investment. High percentage of R&D investment in the GDP is not a cure for the real cause. In fact, European universities rank far below the top universities in the world. In the field of engineering and computer sciences, the first non-US university is in the 15th rank. Europe's brain-drain is a known phenomena since many bright European minds immigrate to places such as the U.S, Canada and Australia. The outcome is deteriorating international ranking of universities and low efficiency of R&D expenditure on misguided projects such as the intention of the European Commission to build a "European MIT" (link) to boost Europe's global technology leadership.

Without higher growth of GDP, productivity and market working hours, European countries will hardly sustain the convergence towards the U.S level of GDP per capita. To boost economic growth, bold structural reforms are required to cut the rates of shadow economy, reduce tax and social security burden, decrease government spending and deregulate the labor markets.

MONTHLY U.S BUDGET REVIEW

CBO has released the monthly budget review of recent fiscal estimates for the U.S budget (link).

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY AND THE RECESSION

New York Times published an interesting geographic map of the recession in the U.S (link)

FISCAL POLICY AND DEFICIT BOMB

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former CBO director, discussed the negative effects of the new fiscal policy in the U.S (link).

DANGERS OF U.S FISCAL DEFICIT

The Economist has published two great articles on the anomalies of U.S fiscal deficit (link) (link).

U.S ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND MACROECONOMIC OUTLOOK IN 2009/2010

The latest macroeconomic data from major world economies suggested that the recessionary contraction is likely to be ended in the light of positive news on GDP growth and midterm macroeconomic outlook. However, the road of the economic recovery remains uncertain. The policymakers responded to the great contraction of 2008 by decreasing interest rates close to zero rate. Massive injections of monetary stimulus boosted liquidity and attempted to accelerate credit expansion. However, monetary stimulus such as TARP in the U.S encouraged excess reserves. Thus, the banking sector published significant quarterly results as the stimulus package covered the overall losses from the credit crunch and subprime mortgage crisis of the previous year. In this brief article, I outline the economic recovery in the U.S in the ongoing year.

In Q3, the U.S economy grew by 2.4 percent despite the negative unemployment figures. While the U.S productivity grew by 6.8 percent in Q2:09 and by 9.8 percent in Q3:09, the unemployment rate is expected to reach 10.5 percent in December. The $787 billion stimulus from Obama administration to the ailing industries did little to prevent the fallout of demand and the financial difficulties of many firms. In fact, most of the stimulus has not already been spent. In spite of enormous fiscal emergency aid, the Obama administration effectively nationalized the auto industry as Detroit's auto industry declared bankruptcy. The auto industry is likely to recover gradually. Eventually, the fall of Detroit's giants was more likely a consequence of auto industry's inability to cope with high labor cost and fringe health and pension benefits.

The underlying economic theory and evidence teach that massive government intervention in the economy is inefficient as if government bailout hadn't occured. In Q3:09, financial industry posted significant quarterly earnings. Monetary stimulus inflated another asset bubble which translated into highly prospective annual data and higher volatility. Morgan Stanley's annual stock return currently stands at 133.4 percent (link). On the other hand, stock markets rallied in the light of significant quarterly earnings of the banking and financial sector. In one year, Dow Jones Industrial Average grew by 18.27 percent (link), S&P 500 increased by 22.16 percent (link) while Nasdaq Composite's annual growth rate stands at 36.91 percent (link). Stock markets rallied in the light of favorable earnings projections and cost reductions.

On the macroeconomic level, the U.S economy is likely to face a long L-shaped recovery. The underlying conditions are extremely low interest rate, high unemployment rate and high quarterly productivity growth rate. Much of the confidence in fiscal stimulus and expansionary fiscal policy was based on the initial assumption that spending multipliers will exceed 1 and boost short-term output and investment to reduce the negative output gap. Nevertheless, fiscal policy outlook remains sluggish and the prevailing evidence suggests that spending multipliers are hardly positive, except for when the unemployment rate exceeds 12 percent, causing a major fallout of capacity utilization. Robert Barro and Charles Redlick recently estimated the cost of fiscal stimulus. The Obama administration has already expressed commitment to raising the marginal tax rates. Tax increases are the unfortunate midterm alternative because excessive borrowing and the estimated 9.9 percent of the GDP fiscal deficit in 2009 (link) has already downgraded sovereign U.S debt outlook. Redlick and Barro showed that one-period lagged increase in the average marginal tax rate reduces, GDP growth by 0.56 percentage point. The overall effect on consumption purchases is -0.29 and the overall effect on investment is -0.35, both statistically significant at 99 percent.

The U.S dollar further depreciated against the euro (link), increasing the U.S inflation rate above the expected target, partly as a result of the increase in short-term yield on Treasury bonds. Purchases of Treasury bonds effectively increased demand for U.S dollars and triggered short-term depreciation trend. An effective reduction of fiscal deficit in the coming years is a necessary condition for mitigating the negative effects of U.S current account deficit. As fiscal deficit raises demand for imports in the U.S, real depreciation of the real effective exchange rate raises relative prices in the tradable sector compared to non-tradable sector. The main highlights of U.S economy recovery will be focused on restrictive fiscal policy and policy interest rates. Zero interest ground is a real disadvantage in economic recovery, mainly because the negative output gap and the Fed is likely to face hard time trading-off between higher inflation if interest rates remains at historic lows while the real sector's credit demand could surge and potential output contraction in the coming quarterly periods if the Fed will raised targeted federal funds rates. In the latter scenario, the U.S economy could repeat the Japanese disease from the 1990s, being faced with long, sluggish and slow economic recovery that could last for several years.

HOW FISCAL AND MONETARY POLICY LED TO THE GREAT DEPRESSION

In the recent edition of WSJ, Arthur Laffer highlighted (link) how mismanaged fiscal policy during Hoover and Roosevelt administration led and prolonged the Great depression, and how contractionary monetary policy let it happen.

THE IMPACT OF RECESSION: GERMANY vs. AMERICA

Douglas J. Elliott of the Brookings Institution compares the impact of this year's recession in the U.S and Germany (link):

"Equally importantly, Germany is justifiably proud of its prowess in exports, particularly industrial machinery and automobiles. Somewhere between 40% and 50% of Germany’s GDP comes from exports, depending on when and how you measure it. This is more than three times that of the U.S., although it is important to note that Germany is a considerably smaller country and is closely integrated with its European neighbors, who are the largest importers of German products. (If the U.S. counted sales from the Northeast to California as exports, our figure would be sharply higher than it is.) Germans view their trade surplus as a sign of virtue and the source of overseas investments that will carry the country through a future in which their aging population cuts back on output and necessarily lives more on the fruits of past labor."

CANADIAN AND THE U.S HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS COMPARED

A study by June O'Neill and Dave M. O'Neill (link) suggests that the U.S health care system provides more choice, efficiency, better delivery and capacity than the Canadian system:

"Does Canada's publicly funded, single payer health care system deliver better health outcomes and distribute health resources more equitably than the multi-payer heavily private U.S. system? We show that the efficacy of health care systems cannot be usefully evaluated by comparisons of infant mortality and life expectancy. We analyze several alternative measures of health status using JCUSH (The Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health) and other surveys. We find a somewhat higher incidence of chronic health conditions in the U.S. than in Canada but somewhat greater U.S. access to treatment for these conditions. Moreover, a significantly higher percentage of U.S. women and men are screened for major forms of cancer. Although health status, measured in various ways is similar in both countries, mortality/incidence ratios for various cancers tend to be higher in Canada. The need to ration resources in Canada, where care is delivered "free", ultimately leads to long waits. In the U.S., costs are more often a source of unmet needs. We also find that Canada has no more abolished the tendency for health status to improve with income than have other countries. Indeed, the health-income gradient is slightly steeper in Canada than it is in the U.S."