End Of The New Economy? Can The Nasdaq Be Resurrected?
9 April 2001
The Washington Times
Although positive reports from Alcoa and Dell Computer were newsmakers
and market movers this week, announcements of disappointing corporate
profits and layoffs have become routine over the past few months. As
economic growth slipped to a meager one percent annual rate, stocks
have been in freefall. Despite Thursday's sharp bounce, market bears
continue to roar as the Dow recently experienced its worst week in 11
years, while the Nasdaq, down about 60 percent from its peak last year,
fell to levels not seen in 29 months.
This is not merely idle chat for economists and market pundits.
Americans now have 60 percent of their savings and investment in the
stock market - double the ratio in 1982 - and crumbling stock prices
represent a loss of real wealth.
What happened to the New Economy? Can we get it back?
At the center of the New Economy were advances in telecommunications,
microelectronics, software and management practices. These created new
products and unleashed innovations in the workplace and corporate
supply chain that raised potential productivity growth to levels not
seen since the 1960s.
Better products and productivity resurrected American competitiveness.
From 1989 to 1998, exports accounted for 25 percent of U.S. growth,
more than double the historical norm.
A flexible labor market kept wages from rising too fast. Even as
businesses expanded and unemployment fell, many firms cut costs by
streamlining management and production. Released workers joined even
more rapidly growing firms and new enterprises. Immigrants - from
engineers to janitors - filled gaps in the labor supply.
Meanwhile, a strong dollar and falling oil prices kept import prices
low. Foreign competition pressured businesses to boost productivity -
embracing new technologies and upgrading workers' skills rather than
raising prices to increase profits and wages.
In turn, investments in technology fueled profits among leaders such as
General Electric, Dell, Intel and Microsoft, creating the optimism
necessary to finance start-ups through venture capital and stock
All of this permitted economic growth greater than 4.5 percent and low
inflation for four years through the middle of 2000, plus soaring stock
Unfortunately, forces beyond the control of policy-makers, and some
missteps, deflated the economy and the stock market. The Asian crisis
and continuing malaise in Japan slowed U.S. export growth and increased
imports after 1997. Oil exporting nations agreed to cut production, and
oil prices began rising in early 1999. From July 1997 to January 2001,
therefore, the annual trade deficit grew from $83 billion to $400
billion, creating a drag on demand for domestic goods and services
equal to nearly four percent of gross domestic product.
Moreover, large government surpluses also can constrain domestic
demand, and just as the trade deficit began ballooning in 1997, the
federal budget swung from deficit to surplus. In FY 2001, it may reach
$265 billion. At current levels, the combination of the trade deficit
and budget surplus reduces domestic demand by about six percent.
Furthermore, in June 1999, the Federal Reserve, concerned about
inflation, began raising interest rates. Unfortunately, rate increases
in March and May 2000 had much of their effect after the slowdown had
begun. Growth slowed from 5.6 percent in the second quarter of 2000 to
2.2 percent and 1 percent in the third and fourth quarters. Instead of
braking an accelerating economy, these rate hikes helped push a
besieged economy over the edge. Growth in corporate profits slowed,
business investment dropped and productivity growth fell.
Since January, the Federal Reserve has cut interest rates three times.
Unfortunately, a time-tested lesson of economics is that monetary
policy can choke a recovery but cannot easily ignite one. Lower
interest rates will not cause consumers to spend much more; Americans
already spend almost everything they earn.
Flagging investment is resistant to rate cuts - corporate managers need
to see more sales and profits on the horizon before they will trade in
old computers or add new capacity.
Fiscal stimulus is needed. The Congress and president must spend more or give some of the budget surplus back to taxpayers.
Although we can quarrel about how much of the surplus should be devoted
to spending versus tax cuts, it is not surprising that the president
and Democratic leaders are debating the size and focus of a tax cut,
not whether we should have one.
Unfortunately, the president's tax plan will not give the economy the
immediate boost it needs. Of the $1.6 trillion proposed, a significant
share is earmarked for ending the estate tax by 2011, and most income
tax rate cuts would be phased-in through 2006.
Meanwhile, the $60 billion tax rebate proposed by some Democrats pales
by comparison to the $665 billion drag created by the trade deficit and
To avoid recession, tax relief should be accelerated. Writing every
taxpayer a rebate check, compressing the timetable for the president's
tax cuts, or some combination of both approaches makes good sense.
Importantly, the fundamentals for rapid growth remain in place -
namely, technological advances and a resourceful work force. If the
country is to get back on track, the Congress and president will
likewise have to show some creativity and flexibility.
Peter Morici is a senior fellow at the Economic Strategy Institute in Washington.
Illustration, NO CAPTION, By AP