The relentlessly bad economic news in recent days raises an important political question: How long does former President Bush keep ownership of this recession?
At this stage, voters have no doubt that the recession started on his watch. Yet plenty of blame deserves to be laid at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, and that blame extends to administrations of both parties, not to mention government-supported enterprises and mortgage companies.
In political terms, voters have dumped the blame into Bush's lap. But, at some point along the way, if this recession lasts very long, its ownership will transfer to President Obama.
According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the official arbiter of such things, this recession started in December 2007. The average length of the last 10 recessions, dating back to 1945, was 10 months, the bureau says.
The two longest lasted 16 months each -- from November 1973 to March 1975 and from July 1981 to November 1982. So, the current recession reached the average length in October 2008, and in May of this year, it will reach the 17-month mark, making it the longest downturn since the Great Depression.
It's no surprise that this recession blew past the average point, nor will it be a shocker when it goes past the 16-month marker, as it surely will. Nevertheless, only the most committed pessimists expect this recession to last as long as the Depression, which actually consisted of double-barrel downturns, from August 1929 to March 1933, and then from May 1937 to June 1938.
One way to think about the present recession is to focus on its two components -- the psychological aspect and the fundamental aspect. The "psychology" is basically that when people get sufficiently worried about the economy, consumers stop buying, employers stop hiring, and lenders stop lending. The cumulative effect is that the economy grinds to a halt. General Electric's chairman and CEO, Jeff Immelt, calls this process a "negative feedback cycle."
The "fundamental" aspect of the problem is the more serious one. It involves financial institutions whose books are filled with assets of dubious value -- investments so upside down that even if the psychology turned around, normal appreciation wouldn't bring them right side up.
The economic stimulus package and Obama's exhortations are all designed to address the recession's psychological aspect. But the downturn's housing and toxic-assets component is what makes this economic crisis so challenging.
Should the recession last twice as long as the worst downturns since the Great Depression, or 32 months, it would extend into July 2010, or just over three months before the 2010 midterm elections. And although Bush still has ownership of the recession today, at some point next year, if the economy has not clearly bottomed out and started improving, ownership would transfer to Obama. All of the new president's actions would have had a year and a half to have worked. And if they haven't by then, he would begin to get the blame.
Statistically, so long as most of the remaining financial institutions hold together, one would certainly expect this recession to be coming to a conclusion at least by mid-2010. But, that proviso about financial institutions and their assets is the key. Their troubles are largely what's making this downturn deeper and tougher than normal.
As polling very clearly shows, congressional Republicans have done nothing to help themselves by almost unanimously opposing the massive stimulus package. Indeed, they look increasingly isolated: a narrow party that is looking inward for sustenance. Selecting former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele to be national party chairman is about the only intelligent thing that Republicans have done since Election Day. At this point, a Republican rebound seems more contingent upon a Democratic collapse than anything else. Certainly, Republicans aren't doing anything these days to help bring themselves back.











Well, lets see. The Bush admin. didn't have any problem blaming his own diasterous 'reign' on the Clinton administration for the last 8 impossibily bad years. Seems to me that GWB deserves everything that comes his way. I'd rather have someone who is sexually content than someone who has to spend his days lying to the public to get what he wants. Obama may not do things 'perfectly' and I'm sure that he will get his full share of blame as he tries to dig this nation out from under the mountain of debt that our great grand children will inherit. Darwinism is alive and well. Humans are the only species that actively prop up the weakest amongst us. (Is that really helping society at large?)
Jim in CA
Get a clue, not everyone 'deserves a house' nor is responsible enough to deal with the long term obligations of owning one.
@Jim
"his own diasterous 'reign' on the Clinton administration for the last 8 impossibily bad years"
If the recession started in Dec07 then where do you get off claiming "8 impossibily bad years"?
We had growth through most of them. So where are all these bad years?
@wlpeak, I think @jim in ca is talking about how the Bush Administration (and a lot of his supporting bloggers) were trying to smear this whole problem on Clinton. Clinton did this, Clinton did that. Because certainly this would have nothing to do with the tax cuts that he did.
I don't believe the polls show what you think they do. The only poll I can find on the "not so much" stimulus came on 2/9 or earlier.
The way the plan was whisked through Congress with not only no debate, but also no copy of the bill available in time for anyone to, you know, read it indicates secrecy more than stimulus. I don't believe it will provide much stimulus at all and seemed to more a porkfest than a stimulus. Sure, we really need to spend $8 billion on Harry Reid's train.
Rick
Wow... it's always fascinating to me that we can all look at the same facts and see such different things. Somebody has to be lying to themselves.
1. EVERY administration, to the extent they can get away with it, attempts to emphasize the messes they inherited (buy low, sell high). The notion that the Bush Administration pushed the envelope here would require facts that you have not presented. Whether you like it or not W did inherit a recession from Bubba.
2. The notion that tax cuts created the condition economic mess is laughable on its face. The tax cuts helped get us out of the 2001 recession. Tax cuts are a major component of the stimulus plan for this very reason. Obama's economic advisers have written scholarly papers finding that a tax cut equal to 1% of GDP ($130 billion or so) generate growth equal to 3x that figure. You need to do some reading.
3. Obama will inherit responsibility for this mess when it becomes accepted that he has increased our deficits 10x without impacting the economy. This is entirely possible. The notion that you can somehow rush a massive de-leveraging process, as consumers and businesses alike try to repair their balance sheets, is novel and likely irresponsible. Add that the stimulus had far too many liberal (trojan horse) policies (e.g. ending welfare reform, expanding Federal Government's role in healthcare) and far too few true spending projects and tax cuts, it's likely $800 billion of MISS. If that was the only problem, it wouldn't be a killer for Obama but those trojan horses will require money indefinitely.
4. I'm still chuckling over the idea that Obama's team accepts carte blanche. Mainly, that we need to somehow juice the credit markets to get the economy moving today. This is backwards. The credit markets are fueled by a growing economy not vice versa. I could offer each of you $10 million (collateralized on whatever meager possessions you have left) and you are unlikely to accept it. Why? You have no good use for it. Can't invest it. Starting a new business? Probably not going to make it in the current climate. Stock market? Please.
5. To sum up then, Govco cannot do everything and the public needs to resist the temptation for it to just do something. Obama, as any good liberal would, could not resist the temptation to throw "Government is the answer" at every problem. That's very expensive and when it's clear it didn't help, he's SCREWED. The best thing that government could have done during this period is CUT taxes to the bone, returning money to those that need to repair their balances sheets (incurring higher fiscal deficits but at levels one quarter what we're looking at) and CREATING INCENTIVES FOR RISK-TAKING IN A RISK ADVERSE ENVIRONMENT. This would shorten the recesssion (reduce severity too) but it runs counter to liberal ideology. So this isn't change and it certainly isn't worth believing in.