Feb 4, 2012

Home| Tools| Events| Blogs| Discussions Sign UpLogin

Facebook| Twitter| Share

| Email| Print

Economic Sense

RSS By: Matt Bogard, AgWeb.com

Matt's primary interest is in the biotech industry and ag policy.

Why Occupy Wall Street Will Keep Up (the Wrong?) Fight

Nov 26, 2011

By Matt Bogard

Previously I had said "Time will tell if those occupying Wall Street calling for ending the Fed and crony capitalism are the true voice of the movement, or if they will ultimately find themselves tools for more interventionism through a progressive policy agenda." With a recent article in the Washington Post, I think I’m starting to piece together an answer, at least from one protester.

See: Why Occupy Wall Street Will Keep Up the Fight

Take, for instance, the following quote:

"Only a soft regime change can end the pervasive corruption at the heart of our political system, in which corporate money wins elections, drafts laws and trumps citizen desires."

How is it that corporate money wins elections, drafts laws, and trumps citizen desires? I've discussed previously the issue of disproportionate political power and abuse as it relates to extreme wealth and corporate influence. In short, it's the nature of unrestrained democracy, not unrestrained capitalism. By granting government powers beyond those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, progressive policies have represented bounty to be won by whoever can exert the most political muscle, as put by Public Choice economist Dennis Mueller. If we are going to be concerned with the outlier that is the 1% of wealthiest Americans, our concern should be with those that achieved their wealth via progressive coercive political means as opposed to those that achieved it through socially cooperative means enriching the lives of multitudes. The ignorant, shortsighted, prejudiced view of the 1% as being a homogenous group of thieves and manipulators is not enlightening.

The writer goes on:

"Only the plural voices of everyday Americans, the 99 percent, have the capacity to wake up the 1 percent to their greedy, self-serving ways, and to dismantle the global casino in which $1.3 trillion worth of derivatives, credit default swaps and other financial instruments slosh around every day without a hint of concern or regard for the millions of lives that such speculation can destroy.…And we will see clearly articulated demands emerging, among them…a move toward a 'true cost' market regime in which the price of every product reflects the ecological cost of its production, distribution and use; and with a bit of luck, perhaps even the birth of a new, left-right hybrid political party that moves America beyond the Coke vs. Pepsi choices of the past."

While financial instruments may be difficult to understand, they are not bets made at the track or in a casino, they are tools for managing risk and directing capital to fill the most urgent needs of society based on the knowledge and preferences of multitudes of individuals, all giving their input via the price system. While not perfect, as the great economist Frederick Hayek put it, I would prefer imperfect prices over the pretense of knowledge. It was through the pretense of knowledge and the Federal Reserve’s actions in the social planning of money, interest and housing ("without a hint of concern or regard for the millions of lives that such speculation can destroy") that we got the financial crisis and the current recession.

The idea of a "'true cost' market regime" is an even more futile exercise in the pretense of knowledge. As I mentioned in a previous article, when we as a society fail to have the knowledge to determine the correct price and quantity of ice cream for our community or nation, how can we determine the correct price or quantity of carbon (or the ecological cost of any good, for that matter)? Aren’t those sorts of calculations what would be necessary to implement a "‘true cost’ market regime"? The command and control structure necessary to implement this ("without a hint of concern or regard for the millions of lives that such speculation can destroy") would be demeaning to the millions in the 99% and empowering to the wealthiest and politically connected in the 1%. We’ve seen the effects of economics of scale in compliance in agriculture before. We saw how empowering the Waxman-Markey attempt to ecologically price carbon was to the world's largest corporations.

I think through all of their rhetoric and their own model of direct democracy, many of the OWS crowd may confuse the virtues of the market with democracy. Unfortunately, people think that there is something mystical and blessed about the end result of tallying votes. They fail to see how arbitrary this can be, and how poorly voting can work as a means to express and represent individual preferences about very specific issues that deal with the minute details of everyday life and work. They confuse voting with the role and social function of the price system. What we need isn’t more democracy, or fascist price-fixing regimes. What we actually need is more of the Coke vs. Pepsi choices of the past. I know the author was probably analogizing the little difference between political parties, but Coke vs. Pepsi is a great example of how empowering the price system is compared to the democratic decision making by two barely indistinguishable parties. Anyone recall how empowering markets were to the 99% with regard to New Coke? How about more recently Netflix’s change in pricing structure? Agvocates are well aware of how empowering markets and social media were when it came to the corporate policies of Yellowtail and Pilot Travel Centers. Could you imagine having to implement these types of changes and getting these responses through our political system or any number of political parties? Of course not. Voting is too blunt an instrument to do this.When we try to democratize these types of choices, votes are not empowering tools of democracy for the masses, they are empowering instruments for the politically connected 1%. The answer isn't more voting or additional choices in political parties. The answer is, as our founders put it, a republic if we can keep it, restrained from interfering with the minute details and choices of our everyday lives.

So I conclude by asking, is the OWS movement really about empowering the masses, or will they ultimately find themselves tools for more interventionism through a progressive policy agenda? If the movement is more concerned about wealth redistribution and things like "‘true cost’ market regimes," they are fighting the wrong fight.

Comments (0)

Occupy Wall Street: Hitching a Ride on the Tea Party Express?

Oct 08, 2011

By Matt Bogard

The #occupywallstreet movement seems to be a pretty diverse group. From ‘trolling’ the occupywallstreet forums , there seems to be a big concern with corporatism, what economists would consider rent seeking- which is using the political apparatus to gain special favors (in terms of taxes, subsidies, or regulations) . There are also many concerned about the role of the Federal Reserve, which through the social planning of money and interest played a significant role in the financial crisis . And of course, many are rightfully upset over the bailouts. On most of these issues, if they are serious about their concerns, they find themselves practically standing hand-to-hand with the Tea Party. Then, on occasion you will find some listing demands for things like living wages, tariffs, and increased regulation, a Buffet style tax and other progressive end policies. So, you’ve got people within the same movement coming from entirely polar extremes, all converging on Wall-Street with a beef. While nothing seems official, you can’t help but notice two major themes- 1) a call for getting the money out of politics and 2) class warfare between the top 1% (in income or wealth) and the other 99%.

Last week, I presented an exhaustive look at the facts related to the distribution of income and taxes paid by the highest income earners. The facts showed that that the wealthy actually do pay more in taxes than their ‘secretaries’ and that the income gains over the last few decades have not gone mostly to the rich. (I have actually added even more to the evidence on my principles of economics blog here). But what about the top 1%?

First off, the top concern should not be the disparity of income or wealth in any society, but the process that generates that outcome. As the data I presented last week indicates, the process in the U.S. allows lots of movement and economic mobility. In fact, a free society that produces unequal shares of income and wealth (including people like Bill Gates, the late Steve Jobs, and the numerous unspoken entrepreneurs) is the kind of society able to deliver a lifestyle and opportunities to the masses.

But, if class warfare is the end in itself, it is interesting to ask, just how much wealth do the top 1% of wealthiest Americans control? Depending on your source you can get different results. According to one source, the top 1 % of Americans (in terms of wealth) ‘control’ about 20-25% of the nation’s wealth. Another source indicates that they ‘control’ closer to 40%. But, again, when we look back over the last century, we don’t observe any drastic increase in the concentration of wealth. Whatever the correct number, the idea that the wealthiest Americans control any proportion of the nations wealth is a bit elusive. It might be better to state that the top 1% of wealthiest Americans are connected to 40% of the nations wealth.

Of course, if we were talking about King Henry the VIII, or Adolph Hitler, or Joseph Stalin, we might correctly say that these people controlled vast amounts of resources vital to the well being of millions of their citizens. However, if you are a wealthy individual that owns as part of your vast wealth a large amount of Netfilix’ stock, what would you say you are in control of? Given the recent drastic plunge in its value, wouldn’t you say that although you were connected to that vast wealth, it is subject to the individual decisions of multitudes of consumers and other investors? The simple fact is, no matter what the asset, owning an asset (be it stocks, collectible sports cars, beach homes, yachts, or Scrooge McDuck’s Money Bin) entails opportunity costs. Those opportunity costs arise as a direct result of other people’s desires and interest in owning or having access to those resources. Maybe you own a ton of real estate in shopping centers. That is meaningful only as long as the rest of society values shopping centers. (Again, just ask Coca Cola when they changed their formula, Netflix when they changed their pricing structure, or Blockbuster before them). This is in fact why we have so much mobility in the income and wealth distribution as shown in the data! As my economics professor taught long ago, we the poor college students, were able to outbid wealthy people every day in the ordinary transactions of buying and selling. One of the most basic principles of economics is that prices force you to consider the impacts of your choices on others. When it comes to allocating resources in society, the market is the great equalizer. Appealing to class warfare by dividing society into fractions of 1 & 99 really gets us nowhere.

Of course, we may agree that when the top 1% (along with corporations and special interests) use their wealth to influence politics the free society paradigm breaks down. In fact, many of the protestors on Wall Street agree with the idea that ‘a democratic government derives its just power from the people… and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. ‘

As public choice economist Dennis Mueller is quoted in the article Public Choice Revolution:

"Interest groups will engage in what public choice theorists call "rent seeking," i.e., the search for redistributive benefits at the expense of others. The larger the state and the more benefits it can confer, the more rent-seeking will occur. The entire federal budget...can be viewed as a gigantic rent up for grabs for those who can exert the most political muscle."

Our founders were well aware of these issues as stated in Federalist #10:

"From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties."

-like the 1% and the 99%?

In Federalist #10 they also warned us about the populist appeals and uprisings that may result, but proposed a solution:

"A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project…we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government."

But the solution is not more government control through regulation of redistributive Buffet taxes. The remedy proposed by the founders is embodied in a constitution, with specifically enumerated powers, not true democracy as quoted by the occupiers on Wall Street. If we look at the many powers of government today, how many were transfers of power away from the people by avoiding the amendment process or via crazy court decisions (like Helvering vs. Davis or Wickard v. Filburn) The purpose of the constitution was to ensure that the government did very little without the consent of the governed. For the most part, that was achieved through legislation held in the strict bounds of enumerated powers, with expanded powers of government coming through the amendment process. This strict adherence to constitutional principles was the foundation for a workable democratic constitutional republic, as stated by Economist Thomas Sowell in Judicial Activism Reconsidered,

"The federal Constitution is "the supreme law of the land," not because it is more moral than state constitutions or state or federal legislative enactments, but because it represents a larger and more enduring majority. Minorities receive their constitutional rights from that enduring majority to which transient majorities bow, not from whatever abstract moral rights are imagined to exist as a brooding omnipresence in the sky."

Democracy, limited by strict adherence to constitutional principles meant that government would have few powers and resources to spend on corporate interests, or progressive objects of benevolence. As Thomas Jefferson stated:

"in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution"

If the occupiers are seriously concerned about money in politics, then, once again, they should find themselves in lockstep with the Tea Party in calling for a return to constitutional principles and limited government. Time will tell if those occupying Wall Street calling for ending the Fed and crony capitalism are the true voice of the movement, or if they will ultimately find themselves tools for more interventionism through a progressive policy agenda.

Comments (0)

The Buffet Tax Deception

Sep 24, 2011

By Matt Bogard

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." - Murray Rothbard Making Economic Sense (1995)

Should we really be thinking about making national tax policies based on the single random anecdotal observation of a celebrity businessman? Recently there has been a lot of talk from the media, politicians, and other commentators about a ‘Buffet Tax’ to ensure that billionaires pay their fair share of taxes. The battle cry comes from comments by very successful businessman and investor Warren Buffet, who claims that his secretary pays more in taxes (as a percent of income) than he does. There are also claims that income for middle Americans has stagnated, while the wealthiest Americans have enjoyed most of the gains in income growth over the last decade. This is a long post, but the short of it is that these claims may sound good politically, and make great headlines for the media, but they don’t stand squarely with the facts.

Let’s look at the first claim. Do billionaires really pay less in taxes as a percent of income than their secretaries?

Source: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979 to 2005 Congressional Budget Office

Since these rates have not changed in the last 5 years, these numbers are still relevant, and show that historically the rich (like Warren Buffet) have always paid more. In fact, when it comes to ‘fairness’, the U.S. has one of the most progressive (meaning the rich pay more) tax systems in the world (see the data here at the Tax Foundation). Sure it is possible that with the correct shelters/loopholes/wealth management, a wealthy person like Buffet could actually end up paying lower overall rates than their secretary. However, what the data shows is that overall, on average, the rich do pay more, with only a few rare and random cases like Buffet paying rates similar to or less than working class Americans. This brings up many questions. Why make major changes in the tax code that will affect millions to address the very few Warren Buffets of the world? Some would say to be ‘fair’ but as noted above, we already lead the world in terms of tax fairness based on income and the rich are already paying more. In terms of all income taxes collected by government, the wealthiest Americans pay most of the taxes.

The top 10% of earners make up about 10% of all households earn about 40% of all income, but pay 55% of all taxes (way more than their proportional share of income). The top 1% of earners make up only about 1% of households, earn about 18% of all income, but pay almost 30% of all taxes, again more than their share of national income.

Source: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979 to 2005 Congressional Budget Office

No matter how you slice the data, there is no way you can claim that the rich are not paying ‘their fair share’ of taxes. (Note this is even after the 2001 & 2003 tax cuts)

Another myth related to this, is that income for middle Americans has stagnated, while the wealthiest Americans have enjoyed most of the gains in income growth over the last decade. Again, this is not supported by the data. The first problem is that commentators and politicians with axes to grind typically refer to the ‘median household income’ to represent ‘middle class.’ While using the median is statistically more robust (less biased) than just the average when it comes to skewed income data, using median household income is still inappropriate. As economists Thomas Sowell and Russ Roberts explain clearly here (video) and here, households have changed tremendously over time, and really aren’t comparable over time. But there are even more reasons why median household income can be misleading. Researcher Steve Conover points out in a recent article at the American Enterprise Institute’s American magazine, just looking at the median to define middle class is a very restrictive definition. After assembling data on income over the last decade based on data from the US Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Conover developed several definitions of ‘middle class.’ No matter how many different ways we could define ‘middle class’ when we actually look at data on income gains over the last few years, we find in fact that middle class income earners gained much more than the top 20% of earners, while the top 5% actually saw losses.

Source: The Myth of Middle-Class Stagnation, Steve Conover

Of course, if we are concerned about the distribution of income in society, the important thing isn’t so much who’s gaining in which category, but instead it is how often people move up and improve their standard of living. After all, the American dream is not based on how much the rich pay in taxes vs the poor, or who gets the biggest piece of the pie. The American dream is about going out and getting your own piece of pie, or in other words, income mobility. As economist Steve Horowitz explains in this video, even if you insist on looking at ‘median’ income earned by ‘households’ vs. individuals, when we follow these people over time we see lots of income mobility as they move from one part of the income distribution to another. The data shows that income mobility in the U.S. has been very robust. As reported in the U.S. Treasury report Income Mobility in the U.S. from 1996 to 2005:

"Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups. The degree of mobility in the overall population and movement out of the bottom quintile in this study are similar to the findings of prior research on income mobility."

So, we’ve debunked the myth that the wealthiest Americans aren’t paying there fair share, we’ve shown that middle class Americans have received significant gains in income over the last decade, and that income mobility in the U.S. is a reality. What other excuses can we/they come up with to raise taxes? One might claim that this is necessary to increase revenues, or reduce the budget deficit. In a previous post I’ve already shown how revenues actually increased while the budget deficit drastically dropped after the Bush tax cuts. Quite a bit of additional research actually shows that higher income individuals are extremely sensitive to tax increases, and that tax increases can contribute to decreased job creation and investment.

Were it not for the recession, the data shows that the middle class and the American dream was thriving. Instead of focusing on class warfare inspired non-issues (at least when it comes to real data), the media, commentators and our law makers should focus on the real issues at hand, chiefly the regulatory climate and the uncertainty (as mentioned last month) that it is creating. Bad government policies, interventons, and regulations created the financial crisis which lead to the recession, and just as in the Great Depression, regulatory uncertainty is currently impeding the turnaround. Besides being based on bad evidence and false perceptions, talk about a ‘Buffet’ tax rule only adds to the cloud of uncertainty keeping us in the current economic rut.

Comments (1)

The Trickle Down Economics of Cap and Trade

Aug 30, 2011

By Matt Bogard

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." - Frederick Hayek

What I used to think about climate economics:

What economists must do then is take consensus science into account, and approximate what the price of carbon should be to limit economic damages from CO2. This level will be achieved where the marginal cost of reducing carbon emissions is equal to the benefits of decreased damages from climate change in the future.

What I used to believe to be the current state of the art of climate economics:

Nordhaus ( Using the DICE-2007 model, and based on the science of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) prices carbon at about $30/ ton, with the average person in the US generating about 5tons/yr, for a total of about $150/year, or .09 /gallon of gas and .01/kwh for electricity. However, the Stern Proposal(proposed by another economist in the U.K) estimates the damage from global warming to be closer to $300/ton carbon for the next two decades. In this case we are looking at increasing gas prices by about $1.20/gallon. (read more)

Discussion:

I used to ponder, who is right, and how can economics narrow the gap between these approaches. Now I question the idea of even 'pricing carbon' and the assumption that the impacts of climate change (manmade or not) are not captured in market interactions.

Carbon Taxes

The idea of pricing carbon is that given the assumption that CO2 production has a negative impact on climate change and so many goods and services are carbon intensive, if we can put a price on carbon (paid by corporations that trade carbon permits or a carbon tax) to capture the value of the negative externality, this will 'trickle down' to the mirco level, such that when you buy an ice cream cone, gasoline, or a pencil, the impact of your choice on the climate will be captured in the price you pay for it. This is the climate change knowledge problem. We have to get the initial price of CO2 correct so that the 'trickle down' economics works at the micro level and we ward off catastrophic climate change.

The correct price for carbon will balance the marginal cost of reducing carbon emissions with benefits of decreased damages from climate change in the future. As Armstrong points out, there are few scientific forecasts related to these future damages. And technological change allows us to continually respond the volatile effects of climate change. Advances in biotechnology are allowing us to produce more climate resilient crops, all the while reducing our carbon footprint in agriculture. How can we incorporate this knowledge into our calculus? When it comes to the costs of reducing carbon emissions, it isn’t any easier. What are the opportunity costs of resources invested in emissions mitigation (voluntarily vs. those mandated or incentivised by government administered prices for carbon)?

Tradeable Permits

Some will argue that instead of a tax, you can get similar or superior results by defining property rights in the form of carbon credits or tradeable permits. Then markets can solve the information problem via the price mechanism that manifests in the trading of permits. The problem still stands. Someone has to initially assign some quantity of permits to 'polluters.' This quantity has to be based on some determination of an 'optimal' quantity of CO2 emissions. This also requires the information necessary for determining the marginal benefits and costs of each associated unit if CO2. The knowledge problem has not been solved, just reformulated in a way that is equivalently intractable for planners to solve. Unless planners get this quantity right, the price that 'trickles down' at the micro level for all goods and services will be too high or too low, based on the artificial scarcity or excess created by the planners’ miscalculation. The classic example of the Coase Theorem solves the externality of pollution of common property like a lake by clearly assigning property rights. The optimal level or quantity of pollution is a separate problem solved by the price mechanism via subsequent exchanges of property rights or contracting. In the case of CO2, the assignment of property rights and the optimal quantity of pollution both have to simultaneously be determined. You have to determine some initial quantity of pollution in order to create the permits (which a are then traded to establish a price).

From the Capitalism Today Blog at Western Kentucky University there was recently a discussion regarding macroeconomic equilibrium and the difficulties of knowing the micro-level equilibrium for something (seemingly) as simple as ice cream:

"They act as if not only there is equilibrium, but that they know where it is. If anyone knows exactly how many ice cream cones the US needs to produce tomorrow, please raise your hands. What no hands? No one can know the "appropriate" amount of ice cream cone production for today let alone for tomorrow. The $15 trillion US economy makes a lot more than just ice cream cones."

I think this analogy may also apply to pricing carbon. Ice cream comes in lots of varieties and flavors, produced and marketed various ways (natural, conventional, biotech, hormone free, organic, home made, store bought, ice cream trucks, retail outlets). Ice cream is pretty differentiated when you think about it. What about carbon? Noone knows how to set a 'national' or even a 'local' price for pencils, or the correct quantity of pencils that our complex world requires. Why do we expect carbon to be any different than ice cream or pencils? Even if economists like Nordhous and Stern were in agreement, their solutions would not sufficiently deal with climate change's knowledge problem.

Some will agree that planners are no match for markets in determining prices and quantities, but because we currently have no established property rights to the atmosphere there is no 'price' for carbon. As such, there are going to be consequences if we do nothing, and the next best solution is an attempt, even if not perfect, to price carbon because it is not considered in market transactions.

Is that really the next best solution and is it true that the price mechanism totally ignores CO2?

What is carbon really? 'Carbon' in an economy manifests itself in how we heat and cool our homes, how we manufacture goods and services, how we respond to emergencies, how we travel and transport goods, how we store and retrieve information. Leonard E. Read's essay I, Pencil demonstrates the complexity involved in an economy that thrives on disaggregated information and processes with numerous feedback loops and interactions. In a complex society, carbon is no different, and while it may not be explicitly and directly priced, it is hard to believe that its role is not part of the pool of knowledge characterized by the partial bits of information held by all individuals in society.

In fact, while politicians and special interests argue over the politically optimal arrangement of regulatory protections and subsidies to 'combat climate change' markets have responded in much more meaningful ways without any bureaucratically administered price of carbon or cap on CO2.

As Dr. Don Boudreaux of George Mason University points out in a recent piece in the Wall Street Journal, in response to climate alarmists’ connecting violent storms and climate change (and obviously calling for centralized solutons to combat it): (read more)

"...because of modern industrial and technological advances—radar, stronger yet lighter building materials, more reliable electronic warning devices, and longer-lasting packaged foods—we are better protected from nature's fury today than at any other time in human history."

Perhaps the innovations in green technologies in agriculture provide the greatest example of mitigating climate change:

Total decreases in carbon dioxide as a result of using biotech crops was equivalent to removing 6 million cars from the road in 2007. The carbon footprint for a gallon of milk produced in 2007 was only 37 percent of that produced in 1944. For every 1 million cows, the reduction in global warming potential from rBST supplemented cows is equivalent to removing 400K cars from the roadways or planting 300 million trees. The use of grain and pharmaceutical technology in beef production has resulted in a nearly 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gases (GHGs) per pound of beef compared to grass feeding. Intensive agriculture has actually has a mitigating effect on climate change with a reduction of 68 kgC (249 kgCO2e) emissions relative to 1961 technology. (read more)

Conclusion:

We are not really sure how to price carbon, and what we observe in all of these instances is that despite the absence of a centrally planned price or quantity of carbon, people are making choices that optimize its use or production. Because we don't have the knowledge to price carbon, we don't know that the resources expended in 1) lobbying lawmakers to tweak the proposed rules and regulations 2) mitigating the costs of a centrally planned price or quantity, would not have higher valued uses mitigating climate change in other ways (like investment in green technologies like biotech). The best approach for dealing with climate change or any environmental problem is to develop resilient market based economies that are able to invest in the technology necessary to adapt to ever changing resource constraints.

Comments (0)

The S&P Credit Downgrade

Aug 13, 2011

From the report: http://www.ft.com/cms/af2c4fac-bfc2-11e0-90d5-00144feabdc0.pdf

"the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011"

One of the main reasons that the ‘multiplier’ effects of the stimulus have not taken hold, and the reason that the economy is recovering so sluggishly is the uncertainty in the regulatory environment. Last fall, NCBA president Steve Fogelsong put this quite well in an interview on Agritalk where he discusses the regulatory zeal including cap and trade, the takeover of the financial and auto industry, the student loan industry, dust regulation, inheritance taxes, failure of pending free trade agreements, as well as livestock marketing regulations to name a few (at 9:23 on the clip you can find here)

A very similar argument is also well put in a post on the economics blog Café Hayek:

"But if the decline in GDP growth and in the rate of employment are caused, not by a taste-driven increase in the demand for money but, instead, by a large enough disruption in what Arnold Kling calls "patterns of sustainable specialization and trade," then kicking up aggregate demand won't solve the problem. Neither kicking it up, or trying to, through monetary policy or through fiscal policy will work. The problem is not originally one of widespread inadequate demand…. it is clearly the result of distorting government policies, regulatory and monetary, leading up to 2008 as well as of the symptom-treating policies since then that only worsen matters. (And not to mention yet other actual and threatened policies)"

The issue of regulatory uncertainty is not unique to our current economic challenges, we had a very similar situation following the Great Depression, which lasted for over a decade. According to Robert Higgs, this was largely the result of New Deal Policies that created regulatory uncertainty prolonging the depression. You can find his paper here. You can also find a good discussion of this work on the EconTalk podcast here.

I’ve shared a lot of the following research in the past discussing the prediction that the stimulus probably would not work, but given the recent downgrade in the U.S. credit rating, it seems like it is worth a review:

"The Keynesians had it all wrong. In the Great Depression, employment was not low because investment was low. Employment and investment were low because labor market institutions and industrial policies changed in a way that lowered normal employment." --Edward C. Prescott Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review Winter 1999, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 25–31

"We find that New Deal cartelization policies are an important factor in accounting for the failure of the economy to recover back to trend." -Journal of Political Economy, 2004, vol. 112, no. 4 New Deal Policies and the Persistance of the Great Depression : A General Equilibrium Analysis. Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanion.

"We conclude that a new shock is needed to account for the Depression’s weak recovery. A likely culprit is New Deal policies toward monopoly and the distribution of income." ---The Great Depression in the United States From A Neoclassical Perspective Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review Winter 1999, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 2–24

"Businessmen came to ask themseleves whether Roosevelt really understood a system where the hope of profit sparks expansion and investment. Or did he believe simply in centralizing decision and authority in boards and "planners" along the Patomac?" ---The Enterprising Americans: A Business History of the United States BY JOHN CHAMBERLAIN INSTITUTE FOR CHRISTIAN ECONOMICS TYLER, TEXAS

Until we can start thinking outside the box of Keynesian economic policies as well as get a handle on the uncertain regulatory environment, we won’t likely see a strong recovery. That means higher budget deficits and downward pressure on future credit ratings.

For a more entertaining look at policy alternatives, I highly recommend the following youtube videos:

Fear the Boom and Bust