Matt Yglesias pens an extremely readable version of the Smithian view on the near future of the US economy.
What will this recovery look like in concrete terms? Total bank credit, which collapsed during the crisis, is growing again and will keep growing. That will make it easier for Americans to buy new cars and reverse the four years of growth in the average age of America’s passenger vehicles. Families will also invest in other kinds of durable goods—refrigerators, washing machines, etc.—that they’ve been hesitant to upgrade or replace. The housing bust, meanwhile, has been followed by an epic construction slump that’s actually left us with a shortage of homes. But every downward tick in the unemployment rate is another twentysomething moving out of his parents’ basement, stimulating a return to a more normal level of construction. Multifamily housing starts are already up 80 percent over the past year to accommodate the likely coming flood of renters, and there’ll be more to come once people have more cash in their pockets.
This increase in economic activity will boost state and local tax revenue and end the already slowing cycle of public sector layoffs. Re-employment in the construction, durable goods, and related transportation and warehousing functions will bolster income and push up spending on nondurables, restaurants, leisure and hospitality, and all the rest
Not everyone is convinced. Kelly Evans writes
Along with nascent signs of recovery in the housing market, it is tempting to forget about 2011′s disappointments and think 2012 will be the year economists aimed not too high, but too low. Trouble is, recent history suggests it usually turns out the other way around.
Some of this skepticism is I think fueled by the fact that in the winters of 2009 and 2010, things were looking up as well, only to fall apart as the Spring and Summer came along.
This, it appears, was largely a computational artifact. The winter of 2008 was so shockingly and inexplicably bad that the computer programs designed to analyze economic data concluded that winter must be the most perilous time for an economy.
When they saw tepid but not disastrous winters in 2009 and 2010 the computers concluded that the economy must be on sure footing. If the winter isn’t awful then how bad could things really be they reasoned.
Of course, there was nothing about the “winter” itself that was so bad in 2008. It was simply that most dramatic drop in 75 years occurred after Lehman collapsed in mid-October.
Smithianism, however, is not charting. It asks fundamental questions about how people are going to live and work. It then combines that with what we know about the way money and finance work to produce a forecast for the overall economy.
I should resist the urge to wax more philosophic but of course I won’t.
Part of the underlying view here as well is that there is only one world, though there are dozens if not hundreds of reasonable narratives about that world. To the extent that those narratives reflect the world they have to be using different words and phrases for the same thing.
So despite radically different frames, New Keynesianism, Old Keynesianism, Monetarism, Market Monetarism, Modern Monetary Theory, New Monetarism, Vector Autoregression Forecasting, the kitchen table economics of the average family and the synergistically strategic jargon of corporate board rooms, must all be referring to the same underlying mechanics.
Some typical assumptions might be faulty or tweaks necessary to make them give the same answer. But, we should be able to do it. Indeed, much of the time the answers aren’t even substantively different, its just a hidden normative spin that’s different.
What all these narratives tell us is that a recession is somehow related to people not buying stuff. So, the natural questions then are
1) What are they not buying?
2) Why are they not buying it?
A cursory look at the data makes the answer to the first question abundantly clear: cars and houses. Or, more generally, transportation equipment and structures.
Its not even really a close call here. At the nadir of the recession year-over-year sales of motor vehicles and parts was collapsing at, $240 Billion, faster than all other non-gasoline retail and food service sales combined.
The peak-to-trough fall in total final sales of domestic product was roughly $400 Billion. During that same period residential construction spending fell by $200 Billion and from its peak-to-trough residential construction spending fell by close to $500 Billion.
Here is a rough and ready comparison of final sales of domestic product with and without construction and transportation.

The data series aren’t fully comparable, so don’t take that graph to the bank, but it gives you a sense of the importance of those areas to US sales.
Now you can pipe this through any narrative you want and say that:
- Once consumer balance sheets collapsed even a zero federal funds rate was too high to make it optimal for consumers to keep buying transportation and structures.
- Fear among investors and consumers caused them to scale back purchases of long lived items like transportation and structures
- The federal reserve failed to accommodate a huge spike in the demand for money leading to a fall in the demand for transportation and structures
- The federal reserve tightened monetary policy in late 2008 causing a decline in the demand for transportation and structures
- Total debt levels in the economy began to decline in 2008 leading to inadequate demand for transportation and structures
- Failures in the banking system caused a tightening of credit in 2008, leading to less purchases of transportation and structures
- The shock from the fall in asset values in 2007-2008 rippled through the economy leading to a decline in the purchase of transportation and structures
- With retirement accounts and homes collapsing in value, folks thought twice about going out and making big ticket purchases like transportation and structures.
- Consumer deleveraging led to a decline in discretionary purchases of transportation and structures.
However, these are all talking about the same thing. Something happened to credit markets that made people unwilling or unable to purchase transportation and housing.
Thus to a large extent we can judge the ebbing of this phenomenon by looking at whether people are more willing or able to purchase transportation and housing.
Part of that depends on how badly people need new transportation and structures. Part of that depends on whether they can get easy financing for transportation and structures. Both of those things are improving. This leads to a baseline view that the process causing the Great Recession is about to unwind.

8 comments
Comments feed for this article
Saturday ~ December 31st, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Curt Doolittle
RE: “This leads to a baseline view that the process causing the Great Recession is about to unwind.”
Yes, but it doesn’t mean that we will see the size of decrease in unemployment that Keynesians of every type supposedly solve for.
And it does mean that as we Austrians say: the market will solve the problem by reallocating resources if the government does not perpetuate the further misallocation of resources that would allow people to maintain employment.
And without ‘industrial policy’ as well as repairing our disastrously broken education system, we cannot create goods and services so in-demand that unemployment will not require permanent redistribution or depend upon the factionalization of the political system, and further disruption of the system of property rights and obligations that have made rapid discovery and innovation possible.
Saturday ~ December 31st, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Anon
Yves Smith thinks we don’t really have a housing shorting and cites some data from calculated risk. I am interested in your response.
Saturday ~ December 31st, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Anon
Forgot the link.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/extreme-predictions-2012.html#comment-584124
Sunday ~ January 1st, 2012 at 10:28 am
Mr. Violet (@EuropeanViolet)
Part 1: the big narratives:
given: P -> R,
if R is true, whatever P, “P -> R” will always hold true.
QED
Part 2: static Smithianism:
given: P -> R AND not-R,
whatever P, it follows not-P anyway
QED
Part 3: dynamic Smithianism
same as part 2 but with:
not-R ~= in the process of getting free from F
not-P ~= in the process of P fading out
but this is where it becomes tricky, I guess dynamic Smithianism can be easily reformulated as:
R (recession) is identical to a fall in purchase of cars and houses, we are getting to have a rise in purchase of cars and houses so recession is going to end.
given: R = not-P,
P so not-R
QED
Part 4: implicational Smithianism
if people need to buy cars and houses AND they have enough money for doing that, people WILL buy cars and houses,
people are in need of buying cars and houses AND they (are in the process to) have enough money for doing that, so they (are in the process to) buy cars and houses.
given: P -> R,
P is true, it follows R is true.
THIS IS WRONG!
So we have to reformulate the first assertion:
People buy cars and houses IF AND ONLY IF they need them and they have enough money for them,
people are in need of buying cars and houses AND they (are in the process to) have enough money for doing that, so they (are in the process to) buy cars and houses.
given: R if and only if P,
P is true, it follows R is true.
QED
Part 5: enthymematic Smithianism
Enthymematic premises:
People buy perishable goods when they are in need of them AND if they have enough money for doing that,
The holder of a perishable good will be in need of it if she never had it before or if she had a good of the same kind which has just perished away (or is almost going to perish away).
Reasoning:
given that perishable goods do perish (definitional tautology) and the enthymematic premises said before,
it follows that there will always be enough purchase of perishable goods given enough money to buy them.
Part 6: existential Smithianism
given that perishable goods do exist,
any recession will end after enough time has passed and enough money are provided to people,
enough time almost passed and enough money are going to be provided (as loans), so this recession is going to end.
Sunday ~ January 1st, 2012 at 3:06 pm
teageegeepea
I notice Karl didn’t include Austrians in his list, presumably because they are talking about Mars
Part of Bryan Caplan’s argument against ABCT is that Austrians divide goods up into orders of production. Consumer goods are at the end, producer/capital goods come before and are necessary to make more consumer goods in a “roundabout” manner. Austrians expect there to be a big difference in output/sales for those different categories, but it looks more like durable vs perishable is the more important distinction.
Monday ~ January 2nd, 2012 at 4:19 am
Karl Smith Is Optimistic | FavStocks
[...] Smithianism and Its Discontents « Modeled Behavior: [A] recession is somehow related to people not buying stuff. So, the natural questions then are [...]
Monday ~ January 2nd, 2012 at 7:45 am
Tel
“But every downward tick in the unemployment rate is another twentysomething moving out of his parents’ basement, stimulating a return to a more normal level of construction.”
The Employment Participation Rate continues to fall, so this is incompatible with the belief that construction will be stimulated. The unemployment rate is being reduced by people dropping out of the system and no longer being counted as unemployed.
“A cursory look at the data makes the answer to the first question abundantly clear: cars and houses. Or, more generally, transportation equipment and structures.”
A lot of retailers narrowed their margins and only got lackluster sales. This is not cars and houses, nor is it restaurants, leisure and hospitality. I’m talking about people cutting back on the basics like groceries and household items.
I’m expecting a tough year. A bit of growth; but also pressure from inflation to offset that growth. We saw more than 10% producer-side inflation in 2011, but it didn’t wash through to the consumer side because of heavy retail discounting and because sales have been poor. As soon as the system attempts to grow, and those sales start to pick up, the shortages at the producer side will shoot through to the consumer side. You only get out what you put in.
I’m also going out on a limb and say the house prices in Australia will slump a bit, but not disastrously. Our government will keep on borrowing money and will get away with it for a while yet, but the cracks are starting to show.
Monday ~ January 2nd, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Is a Boom Coming in 2012? « The Weekly Sift
[...] part of how we haven’t been spending is that we haven’t been buying cars and houses. Smith points at this graph of domestic spending with (red) and without (blue) housing and [...]