Share

Cash for Clunkers Drives Third Quarter GDP Growth

by: Dean Baker  |  The Center for Economic and Policy Research

photo
The popular Cash for Clunkers program is being credited for leading to a 3.5 percent growth in the GDP this quarter. (Photo: ThreadedThoughts / flickr)

The defense share of GDP is at its highest level since the first quarter of 1993.

GDP grew at a 3.5 percent annual rate in the 3rd quarter, driven by a 22.4 percent jump in car sales, the result of the Cash for Clunkers (C4C) program. This increase in car sales accounted for 42.0 percent of the growth in the quarter. Consumption as a whole, which grew at a 3.4 percent annual rate, added 2.36 percentage points to growth. Other components making large contributions to growth were inventories, which added 0.94 percentage points; national defense, which added 0.45 percentage points; and residential construction, which added 0.53 percentage points, its first positive number since the fourth quarter of 2005.

The surge in car buying will be reversed in the current quarter, as the main effect of the C4C was to pull car purchases forward. As a result, the auto sector will be a substantial drag on growth in the current quarter. Apart from the auto sector, consumption grew at a 1.0 percent annual rate. With disposable income falling due to continued job losses and declining hourly wages, and the reversal of the surge in car sales, consumption growth will almost certainly be negative in the 4th quarter.

The growth from inventories came in spite of the fact that inventory levels are still falling at a rapid pace. However, the pace of inventory depletion was slower in the 3rd quarter than in the 2nd quarter, therefore this component added to growth. Inventories will add more to future quarters' GDP growth. If inventories were to simply stabilize next quarter, it would add over 4 percentage points to the GDP growth rate for the quarter.

Defense spending continues to be an important factor pushing the economy as it has grown rapidly even as the economy has shrunk. Defense spending now accounts for 5.6 percent of GDP, the largest share since the first quarter of 1993. By comparison, it peaked at 7.6 percent in the 3rd quarter of 1986, at the height of the Reagan build-up. In its last pre-September 11th projections, the Congressional Budget Office projected defense spending for 2009 as 2.4 percent of GDP.

The turnaround in residential construction is noteworthy after the collapse in this sector following the housing boom. Housing fell from 6.3 percent of GDP in the 4th quarter of 2005 to just 2.4 percent in the second quarter of this year. Housing is likely to edge up slightly from its current low levels, but it will not be a substantial source of growth for at least a couple of years.

Non-residential investment contracted at a 2.5 percent annual rate, with a 9.0 percent decline in structure investment more than offsetting a 1.1 percent increase in investment in equipment and software. Structure investment will continue to contract in future quarters. There was substantial overbuilding in most sectors during the years 2006-2008. This sector will be a drag on growth at least through 2010.

Net exports subtracted 0.53 percentage points from growth in the quarter as a 16.4 percent rise in imports outweighed a 14.7 percent rise in exports. The falling dollar will help to even out trade in future quarters, but this sector is unlikely to be a strong contributor to growth in the immediate future unless the decline in the dollar accelerates.

State and local government spending contracted at a 1.1 percent annual rate. The stimulus pending did lead a modest increase in investment spending at the state and local level. However, this was more than offset by spending cutbacks that states implemented to meet balanced budget requirements.

While the growth shown in this report allows us to pronounce the recession ended, it does not provide much basis for optimism about the future. Consumption spending is virtually certain to shrink in future quarters. The same is true of structure investment and state and local government spending. We are unlikely to get much boost from the trade sector or much further boost from defense spending. The only sector that is likely to be a source of substantial growth in the next year is inventories, as the rundown eventually reaches an endpoint. However, with so much weakness elsewhere in the economy, inventories fluctuations will not turn the economy around.

--------

CEPR's GDP Byte is published quarterly upon release of the Bureau of Economic Analysis' report on the Gross Domestic Product. For more information or to subscribe by fax or email contact CEPR at 202-293-5380 ext. 103 or e-mail chinku@cepr.net.

  

»


Dean Baker is the Co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. CEPR's Jobs Byte is published each month upon release of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' employment report.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Ooh, GDP surged. Consumption

Ooh, GDP surged. Consumption grew, defense spending grew, residential construction grew. Ooh. Mostly what that means is the rich got a bit richer. Nothing about wage increase, medical reform, better living for the masses. It's always grow, grow, grow. Well, we all know obesity kills. What an asinine system. We live on a finite world, but we MUST continually grow. Continually use more and more. We must be good consumers and buy more and more. Perhaps Man ISN'T the most intelligent creature on this planet. After all, he's the one killing the planet and all of its precious creatures. And all for the sake of profit, more and more colored pieces of paper. Does this sound sane to anyone?

Rob Hopkins, of the

Rob Hopkins, of the transition movement, has said we could begin to use the word resilient rather than sustainable to define what we might look toward to replace a consumption-pushing kind of economy. I like the resilience concept because it has less of a too-huge-to-contemplate tinge it. Consequently, it seems less depressing and paralysis-inducing. For me, it also has an implied connection to resilience literature, which is filled with stories of managing to survive or even thrive after trauma. Maybe that's just me. I'm interested in what others think/feel/see about this kind of re-framing. Obviously, there is a lot of stuff in the way of this sort of change, literally and figuratively.

One stat is missing: since

One stat is missing: since the 'Cash For Clunkers' program started the first week in July, auto loans past due 60 days have jumped nearly 25%. The CFC was a bubble scheme - there's no way hundreds of thousands of 'clunker' owners suddenly qualified for new car loans in spite of all of the 'banks still aren't lending' headlines. So, do the math: car sales up 22%; auto loan defaults up 25%... hell, that's not even faux growth...

"While the growth shown in

"While the growth shown in this report allows us to pronounce the recession ended..." Baker is just blowing smoke here. First, it's not a recession; it's a depression. Second, it's going to get worse -- a lot worse. Third, and most importantly, the economic model of ever expanding debt fueled consumer based spending is dead and it ain't coming back. Oh, did I forget to mention that America is insolvent and so deeply in debt that there is absolutely no hope whatsoever that it can pay off that debt other than default through hyperinflation? Have a nice day.