Let me dissect each of the unjustified claims of these acclaimed "economists" in Aversa's article:
1) "[Bernanke and other economists] generally agree that gas prices will stabilize and the economy will grow at a 3 percent pace in each of the next three quarters."
Nope, ain't happening. Inflation and the devaluation of the US dollar is accelerating at this point. That means imported goods, including oil, will continue to rise, not stabilize. Further, any recent gains in the unemployment rate which suggest a positive turn for the economy are only because of a falling labor force. The labor force participation rate (percentage of working aged population who either have a job or who are actively seeking employment) has fallen quite drastically recently (see this). I'd be very much surprised to see economic growth exceed 2.5% in any of the next three quarters and to see the average growth over that period exceed 2%.
2) Aversa (and economists) blame winter storms for lackluster construction expenditures.
Wow, what inconsistency in arguments. I can't count the number of times I have heard the following arguments by these very same "economists": heavy snow storms and destruction by high winds, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc. should spur spending as we must spend money to dig ourselves out and rebuild, creating jobs in the process, and when those people spend their incomes other jobs are created, and so on. The classic Broken Window Fallacy. But, I digress. The blame for lackluster construction expenditure should not be on unfavorable weather or on government not spending enough, but on the uncertainty and pessimism encouraged by our fiscal and monetary policy. Private sector decision-makers have less incentive to invest due to the uncertainty and pessimism created by public policy. That is the reason for the further slowdown of construction expenditures.
3) "Bernanke and other economists expect government defense spending and consumer spending will rebound in the next quarter."
Consumer spending is not going to rise, at least not by much in my opinion. Government defense spending? Let's just start another World War and the economy and unemployment will be just fine and we will all be better off according to these economists. Forget about the death and destruction--it's all about the aggregates. I certainly don't want any increases in government spending in any area, including defense spending.
4) "Economists in a new Associated Press survey predict the economy is growing at a 3.2 percent pace this quarter and that growth will steadily improve over the remainder of the year."
Again, growth will be nowhere near 3.2%. Any claims otherwise are irresponsible.
5) "But stripping out energy and food prices, inflation rose at a rate of 1.5 percent. That's at the low end of the range of inflation the Federal Reserve believes is needed for a healthy economy."
How is the continued devaluation of our currency a good thing? Inflation does not lead to growth. Quite the contrary. It leads to confounded information delivered to decision-makers due to uncertainty. This leads a good number of those decision-makers to expend many resources on the unproductive task of predicting inflation (and therefore predicting Fed policy). This slows growth. Again, claims otherwise are irresponsible, at best.
6) The esteemed economists referenced by our media continue to imply that the economy can be tinkered with to produce improved outcomes.
The economy is not an engine. It cannot be tinkered with. To quote Papova and Roberts newest video, Fight of the Century: "The economy's not a car, there's no engine to stall / no expert can fix it, there's not 'it' at all. / The economy's us, we don't need a mechanic / Put away the wrenches, the economy's organic" and "People aren't chessmen you can move on a board at your whim--their dreams and desires ignored...the market's a process where we can discover the most valuable ways to serve one another / we need stable rules and real market prices so prosperity emerges"
Posts
