It's a mistake to see U.S. economy as 'robust'

Letter writer David Schein would be hard-pressed to find any sober economist who'd describe the U.S. economy as "robust." It's not.

Instead of its historical annual gross domestic product growth rates of 3 to 4 percent, the U.S. economy hasn't hit 3 percent in each of the last ten years.

Last quarter's frighteningly low 0.7 percent is almost recessionary. As a comparison, China's growth slowed to 6.9 percent in 2015, its lowest in 25 years.

Today, positive economists somewhat glumly characterize lackluster 2 percent U.S. growth as the "new normal." Even that modest growth wouldn't be possible without massive fiscal and monetary intervention. The government added a stimulative $9 trillion to the national debt since 2009 and the Federal Reserve Bank created $3 trillion and kept interest rates near zero.

Neither of these measures is sustainable. The national debt already exceeds the GDP and the Fed has gingerly begun to raise interest rates, which eventually will displace other government discretionary spending.

A "robust," economy wouldn't drive household income down 7 percent from $57,936 in 2007 to $53,657 last year. The unemployment rate has declined, but largely because the labor participation rate, at 62.7 percent, is at a level not seen since the 1970s when women's entry into the workforce accelerated.

A "robust" economy wouldn't see a poverty rate in 2014 (the last year available from Census Bureau data) of 14.8 percent - up 2.3 percentage points from 2007.

A "robust" economy wouldn't have 46 million people on food stamps, costing $74 billion dollars in 2015, compared to 26 million people, $33 billion in 2007.

The economy has undoubtedly improved since 2009, but it's far from "robust."

Bob Foys

Inverness