James Pethokoukis

Politics and policy from inside Washington

Huntsman rides hard into the 2012 race

Jun 17, 2011 16:04 UTC

When Jon Huntsman, America’s man in Beijing until recently, joins the U.S. presidential race next week, he won’t be coming alone. His entry will add a China spin to the economic issues under debate by the current Republican field. That alone should make his candidacy one worth watching.

No doubt some of Huntsman’s soon-to-be rivals will attempt to make hay that his previous employer was the fellow whose Oval Office they’re hoping to occupy. But the former Utah governor would be wise to use his recent ambassadorial posting to turn the conversation to the Middle Kingdom. America’s primary economic and military rival merited only a single passing mention during the New Hampshire GOP presidential debate earlier this week. That shouldn’t happen again.

Huntsman’s overseas gigs — he was briefly ambassador to Singapore in the early 1990s — give him a unique perspective on the economic challenges and opportunities that Asia’s rise presents to America. Despite current angst about China’s growing economic might, Huntsman knows firsthand the simplicity of that view. China is a desperately poor nation — its per capita GDP is lower than Jamaica’s — that still needs to show it can innovate as well as imitate. It is not a nation of Asian supermen ready to dominate the 21st century.

Moreover, in China’s need to rebalance its economy toward more consumption, Huntsman has seen the flip side of America’s need to reorient toward more saving and less debt. (And how entrenched political interests make such rebalancing efforts difficult.) He’s already hinted at supporting cuts to defense spending and eliminating economically inefficient tax breaks — while also lowering tax rates. And Huntsman’s call for America to increase its energy efficiency echoes China’s efforts to do the same.

Huntsman is also, of course,  sure to talk about his impressive record as the Beehive state’s governor. He was overwhelmingly reelected in 2008, with the nonpartisan Pew Center calling Utah one of the three best-managed in the nation. True, for now, most Americans know as much about Huntsman as they do China — not much. They would be wise to study up on both.



Gary Johnson created far more jobs than Huntsman did(11.5% vs 5% job growth). He also left Governorship as a more popular man. Still, he never got this kind of gratuitous write up. Are you owned by CNN? How do you feel about Ron Paul?

Posted by WillieHze | Report as abusive

5% or bust: more on America’s growth potential

Jun 17, 2011 15:30 UTC

So typical. The WaPo’s Ezra Klein quotes a bunch of people saying that there is no way, no how the economy can grow at 5 percent for a decade,  the “aspirational” economic goal of Tim Pawlenty.

Hey, I can quote people, too! Like economist John Taylor of Stanford:

First, look at employment growth. Given the dismal jobs situation, that’s the highest priority. Currently the percentage of the working-age population (age 16 and over) that is actually working is very low at 58.4 percent. In the year 2000 it reached 64.7 percent, so that is at least a feasible number. Raising the employment-to-population ratio to 64.7 means an employment increase of 10.8 percent (64.7-58.4/58.4 = .108) or about 1 percent per year over 10 years, even without any growth of the population. Adding in about 1 percent for population growth (from Census projections), gives employment growth of 2 percent per year.

Now consider productivity growth. Since the productivity resurgence began around 1996, productivity growth in the United States has averaged 2.7 percent according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. So numbers in that range are not pie in the sky. As Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson and his colleagues have shown, the IT revolution is part of the explanation for the productivity growth, and, if not stifled, is likely to continue, as is pretty clear to me as I sit a few hundred yards from Facebook and other high-tech firms.

Now if we add the 2.7 percent productivity growth to the 2 percent employment growth, we get 4.7 percent economic growth, which is within reaching distance of—or simply rounds up to—the 5 percent target set by Governor Pawlenty. Thus, five percent growth is a good goal to aspire to, whereas 3 or 4 percent would be too little and 6 or 7 percent too much

Is Taylor correct? Well, Don Marron of the Tax Policy Center (and formerly of the Bush WH) puts it this way:

Taylor’s scenario thus assumes that everything breaks right for the U.S. economy for a full decade, with remarkable job growth and remarkable productivity growth in the economy as a whole. Not impossible but, unfortunately, not likely either.

Marron thinks Taylor’s population and productivity numbers are fine. But he does have three problems:

1) Taylor uses a very optimistic assumption about how much employment growth can exceed population growth. Today, about 58% of the working age population has a job. That woefully low level ought to rise as the Great Recession recedes. Taylor assumes that we can boost that ratio back to its 2000 level of almost 65%. But 2000 was the tail end of a technology boom that lifted America’s employment-to-population ratio to record heights. Since then, the working population has aged, so the employment-to-population ratio will be persistently lower even in good times. CEA thus forecasts that labor force changes will trim about 0.3% annually from potential growth in coming years. Getting the employment-to-population ratio back up to 65% thus won’t happen unless we have an even bigger boom than the late 1990s delivered.

2) Taylor assumes that workers will keep working the same number of hours that they do today. That sounds innocuous except for one thing: average hours have been declining. CEA estimates that trimmed 0.3% per year from potential economic growth from 1958 to 2007 and will trim another 0.1% per year from 2010 through 2021.

3) Taylor assumes that the rest of the economy will enjoy the same productivity growth as the nonfarm business sector. In reality, the other parts of the economy – most notably government – are lagging behind. CEA estimates that slower productivity growth outside the nonfarm business sector trimmed 0.2% from potential economic growth from 1958 to 2007 and sees an even bigger bite, 0.4% annually, in the coming decade.

I still like the 5 percent target, even though I think 3.5 -4.0 percent is more realistic.  And Pawlenty’s basic path for getting there — tax policy that rewards saving, reducing regulation and cutting the share of our economy gobbled up by government — is sound as far as it goes.  I would also like to see more on immigration and education policy, as well approaching  basic research and infrastructure spending in a market-friendly way.





Education can add billions to our economy as it would stop giving company excuses for off-shoring jobs. The current trend is to actually bring the jobs back, but education would at least allow Americans to off-shore themselves to find work if they have to (I work for a japanese company in China until jobs come back to the US.). Infrastructure is a must as the US is decaying in this area. The Obama-haters need to realize this simple fact. But it should be done efficiently, but not the chinese style of efficiency which means fast and corrupt. The biggest thing that will keep our economy growing is to reduce imports and increase exports. The US needs to change its export laws to allow more high tech exports, because most of those restrictions are just laughable. Of course we have to keep restrictions on certain military equipment, but come one. Also, we need to reduce the oil imports, which account for the largest chunk of US imports. Alternative fuels, energy efficient technology, and domestic oil production is the key. One last thing; buy american. I live in China and still have the opportunity to buy American goods at local import stores. Those who complain about the US economy but still buy imports are missing the big picture.

Posted by hellomyman | Report as abusive

Obama’s fantasy growth forecast

Jun 17, 2011 14:38 UTC

Another downgrade for the US economy:

(Reuters) – The International Monetary Fund cut its forecast for U.S. economic growth on Friday and warned Washington and debt-ridden European countries that they are “playing with fire” unless they take immediate steps to reduce their budget deficits.

The IMF, in its regular assessment of global economic prospects, said that bigger threats to growth had emerged since its previous report in April, citing the euro zone debt crisis and signs of overheating in emerging market economies.

The global lender forecast that U.S. gross domestic product would grow an anemic 2.5 percent this year and 2.7 percent in 2012. In its forecast just two months ago, it had expected 2.8 percent and 2.9 percent growth, respectively.

Let’s recall the White House forecast from February:

Looking ahead, the Administration projects moderate GDP growth of 3.1 percent in 2011, with growth then rising to an average rate of 4.1 percent during the next four years.

Speaks for itself, I think





Blaming Bush and the Republicans, or indeed, blaming any single political persuasion for the current situation is an oversimplification. (NobleKin, bobw111 never said he was a Republican, so your accusation lacks merit. Many of your other points were on the mark though.)

Both parties have spent like drunken sailors in recent history. And indeed, it is wrong to spend money without having the means to pay for it. When a family runs into that situation, a responsible family will lower their spending to match their income. An irresponsible family will put their spending on the credit cards.

One might claim that the U.S. can “increase its income” by simply raising taxes, but that’s, to put it bluntly, a fairy-tale. The “income” of a country doesn’t come from taxes; rather, it comes from the productivity of its citizens relative to the citizens of other countries. The U.S. has been hit hard by the results of globalization; many jobs that used to provide productivity and income for U.S. citizens are now providing it instead for the citizens of China, India, Brazil, and others. THAT is what has caused the “decrease in income” for the U.S. — raising taxes is just shuffling the decreased overall income between parts of the U.S.; it is not truly an income increase.

Posted by Randy549 | Report as abusive