Dow+150.25up+1.52%
10,058.64
Nasdaq+24.82up+1.17%
2,150.87
S&P+13.78up+1.30%
1,070.52

MSN Money Video

Video on MSN Money
This video player requires the installation of the free Adobe Flash Player
Jim Jubak

Jubak's Journal9/18/2009 12:01 AM ET

The best use of a second stimulus

If there's going to be a new spending package, it should zero in on infrastructure that conveys people, goods, energy and information. The benefits would be far-reaching.

By Jim Jubak

The economy is taking its first shaky steps toward recovery.

Now what should we do?

Pass a second federal stimulus package that would go into effect in 2011, when the effects of the first stimulus have largely worn off?

Move to reduce the deficit because the biggest threat to the nation's future is the huge amount of debt that the country ran up in the bubble and after the bubble burst?

Or something else? And exactly what?

Those were questions I was asked at a Sept. 15 symposium in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the New America Foundation. It was the second in the foundation's Bernard Schwartz series, which has a goal of generating ideas to throw into the policy debate in Washington.

My answer is that the country needs (no, not a good 5-cent cigar) a clearly articulated national growth strategy. One that's simple to understand. That's got a real commitment from the administration and the major powers in Congress. And that investors can believe in.

I'd recommend building it around investment in infrastructure. You know, bridges, roads, high-voltage power lines, ports and airports, an upgraded Internet. Everybody understands that improving these bones of our economy can lead to gains in productivity and higher economic growth.

Stimulus, take 2

That's what a lot of us had hoped we'd get in the first stimulus package. Some of us got really excited at the idea that the country was finally going to put real money into its decaying infrastructure after decades of neglect. We were also really, really disappointed when the infrastructure money included in the final package turned out to be peanuts.

And I know from reading your e-mails and comments that many of you still think that a serious investment in infrastructure would generate serious growth. You and I certainly spend enough time looking for infrastructure plays involving other countries. Why not here?

The other folks who spoke at the symposium, many of them liberal economists, made a convincing case that we have to do something. And something radical. Otherwise we're going to be stuck with unemployment at 10% or so for an unacceptably long time. Years, not months.

I don't even want to think about what years of 10% unemployment would do to politics in the U.S. of A. I think we'd wind up looking back the on the time when a congressman called the president a liar on the floor of the House as the good ol' days.

The problem -- as Carmen Reinhart, a co-author with Kenneth Rogoff of "This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly," told the gathering -- is that while in a normal recession it takes two years for the economy to go from peak to trough and then another two years to regain its former heights, a recession accompanied by a financial crisis lasts much, much longer. Japan's lost decade wasn't an aberration. That's about how long it takes to heal a ravaged financial sector, which kills off every incipient recovery by uncovering another round of bad debt or another wave of bankruptcies.

Video: Stop the stimulus -- pay the deficit

And, boy, do we have a lot of financial-sector damage to undo. Although the rhetoric right now focuses on the huge run-up in government debt, the real need for debt reduction is on the private side. According to figures put together by Sherle Schwenninger and his team at the New America Foundation from Federal Reserve data, the total debt -- public, household and corporate sector -- of the United States hit 373% of gross domestic product in the first quarter of 2009. (That means that we owe an amount equal to 3.73 times the annual output of the entire U.S. economy.)

That 373% is a record, by the way. In 1980, it was just 161% of GDP.

And it's not only politicians who are lousy at handling money. U.S. household debt climbed to 97% of GDP in the first quarter of 2009 from just 48% in 1980. And financial-sector debt climbed to 120% in the first quarter of 2009 from a relatively minuscule 19% in 1980.

This huge debt overhang in the private sector is why the economy is likely to grow at such a slow speed for so long. You don't get sustained growth at 3% or 4% when you constantly have to drain income or profits out of any expansion to pay off debt.

And it's why any attempt to "solve" our current problems by focusing on cutting the public or government debt isn't going to work.

Continued: Removing the roadblocks to growth

 1 | 2 | next >

Rate this Article

Click on one of the stars below to rate this article from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). LowRate it 1Rate it 2Rate it 3Rate it 4Rate it 5High

Stock Picks

MoneyShow.com
Fund data provided by Morningstar, Inc. © 2009. All rights reserved.
StockScouter data provided by Gradient Analytics, Inc.
Quotes supplied by Interactive Data.
MSN Money's editorial goal is to provide a forum for personal finance and investment ideas. Our articles, columns, message board posts and other features should not be construed as investment advice, nor does their appearance imply an endorsement by Microsoft of any specific security or trading strategy. An investor's best course of action must be based on individual circumstances.
Join the discussion!
Sort by:
1 - 10 of 58
Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:36:01 PM

Infrustructure investments only work when the provide a return greater than the the interest rate and the life of the infrastructure.  As an engineer I do these calculations in the real world.  You have to Maintain infrastructure after it is build, you have to count added slow down in production while the infrastructure is being built.  One problem we have today is maintaining infrastructure is not cheap. 

The best infrastucture would be to produce pumped water storage plants, used the saved natural gas, to power government vehicles.  This would not cost tax payers a dime, could be done just by eliminating enviromental regulations.  I am afraid that interest rates due to the mounting debt, will rise and before we get a return on a second stimulus, that debt will be in a 10-12%, it will be tough for projects to retutn that and actually help. 

On an additional Mathmatical note.  100% GDP @ 15% interest, is ~ 800, (existing GDP) vs. 600% of existing GDP for 300% @5% interest, after 20 years.  Interest rates matter when looking at debt.  Adjustign for interest rates of 15% and 4% now, the amount to pay off the debt over a 15 year period is almost exactly the same as today as it was in 1980.

Thursday, September 17, 2009 10:00:34 PM

We can't afford the unsustainable borrowing we've done already-especially if it's followed by a trillion + dollar new entitlement and a massive $2 trillion job-killer energy tax.  

 

And these are just some of the reasons the Obama administration has turned an otherwise brief recession into a 'great recession' and maybe a depression. 

 

Our "lost decade" is coming, and it will be- just like Japan's- the result of an over-reaching, interventionist government that refuses to allow the market to work.  Financial instutitions have to fail, investors have to lose money, and government incentivized malinvestment must come to a complete stop.

 

And it will.  Because we are Americans after all.  We aren't Europe, or Japan.  American citizens are not going to put up with another Jimmy Carter-like era sitting on our hands.  If government doesn't move itself out of the way, I think we're prepared to go to the ballot box and start churning politicians who don't get it- out of office.

 

Thursday, September 17, 2009 11:12:48 PM
The first stimulus package hasn't even been halfway spent yet and they are already talking about another stimulus package.  They haven't even allocated spending on the infrastructure projects from the first package.  80.9 billion is already being used for infrastructure from the first package
Thursday, September 17, 2009 11:52:24 PM

Speaking of Entitlements. . .The Wall Street (keep-government-out-of-our-business) aristocracy just got the biggest Entitlement in historySmile in the form of a gigantic welfare check called the TARP, etc. And what Entitlements do you (and I get) with tax shelters and tax credits and tax deductions?

 

For justice and equity, how about a flat tax. .. no privileges and perks? What would you (and I) have to give up. . .and how much to pay up?

 

President Obama (along with the Fed and Treasury) responded intelligently and swiftly to a situation that started well before he came into office. . .caused by the very people who brought down the system with their scoffing and lobbying against regulation. . .so they could reap millions in profits from risky investments.

 

Sure, let's reduce the Debt. . .by reducing what we take from (withhold from)  the government (Social Security, Medicare, health insurance paid by your employer, etc.) and NOT by reducing help to people who are struggling to survive.

 

pomelo17

Friday, September 18, 2009 5:43:49 AM
But how much useless stuff would have to be added to a second stimulus just to get some bridges fixed. Theres no way our politicians will ever agree to something thats good for the country without something for them. Maybe 2 billion for painting stripes on rainbow trout or a billion to study why black bears climb trees.
Friday, September 18, 2009 5:58:35 AM
I say let the FIRST stimulus actually be used and see what it produces.  I believe our leadership is going to hold onto as much stimulus money as they can and infuse it into Congressional districts where they need to preserve political power to buy seats in Congress in 2010.  They have not demonstrated a real interest in pulling this country out of this mess.  They are in self-preservation mode ALREADY and looking to perpetuate their existence as long as they can.  The good old boys club is alive and well.
Friday, September 18, 2009 6:25:34 AM

Large roadblocks I see to infrastructure improvements are good old-fashioned cases of NIMBYism and an environmentalist movement that sees any infrastructure upgrades as an "unsustainable" drain on planetary resources.  Because of this, the political will for infrastructure is not there.  Developing countries do not have these restrictions.

Friday, September 18, 2009 7:07:10 AM
Though retired, I am on the advisory committee for some State projects. Earlier this week I was part of a group inspecting an 84 year old bridge that has been limited in weight allowed and restricted to one lane. It is the only link to business, farms, schools and vacation travelers for many miles. the rust found in strategic locations, the deteriorated abutments will take tens of millions to "repair", but no repair will assure that the bridge won't fail at another deteriorated location. State and federal funds would be needed for replacement, but these funds are also over-committed elsewhere. If the bridge fails, aside from potential tragedies, the economic hit on the region will be great, and a new bridge will still be needed.   I suggest we HAVE TO repair and modernize our infrastructure.  That's needed, regardless of other "financial" mimics aimed at fixing the fiasco caused by bankers' gambling failures.
Friday, September 18, 2009 7:25:11 AM

Like eng steve I have some experience with infrastructure, and just throwing money at these large projects only means further maintenance and replacement headaches down the line.  Perhaps there are some carefully thought out projects that make sense, but we are so far behind in taking care of what we already have.  In our local community this is exemplified with a huge street light initiative (even for rural areas) that took place a few years ago.  What seemed like such a great idea (not to me) now costs us a great deal in maintenance and energy to just run the system (with few if any real benefits).

When will people begin to realize that only by creating a "value added" product out of lower cost raw materials or through birth of ideas (Hollywood is actually a great example of one product that we still make well, even if you don't like it, and export) can we increase standards of living.  Granted, some infrastructure can increase productivity which increases standard of living (same amount of money spread to less workers), but just "shuffling money around" in a bunch of big projects is not the answer.

I suppose another way to increase the standard of living (briefly) would be to print so much money that we all are able to get a bunch... oh wait... we're already doing that.  Can you say monetary collapse?

This may not end well...

Friday, September 18, 2009 7:35:39 AM
Great, the government in place is so inept they don't have a clue of what to do. I say the second stimulus should be used to get every government official from Nobama, his czars, congress & senate thrown out. We could outsource the government and save trillions, they are so out of touch with the American people outsourcing would be no different than it is today, other than saving trillions of dollars and creating "real" jobs.
1 - 10 of 58
To add a comment, pleasesign in