GUNS | Every American Has One, On Average

May 16, 2013–The United States has inadequate information on gun sales by state. The information was once collected.

Meanwhile, the following fascinating new information on gun supply and demand has been compiled by my friend Jurgen Brauer:

• Firearms imports in 2010 amount to one-third of the total commercial gun market. 
• Foreign brands also produce at U.S. locations and in 2010 captured well over 20 percent of the U.S. commercial pistol market.
• For the first time we have a number for used firearms resold via federally licensed retailers. In 2010 it was 9.8 million pistols, revolvers, rifles, and shotguns, about 1.5 million of which were used (previously owned) weapons. 
• The total number of military and nonmilitary firearms that entered commerce between 1986 and 2010 is about 150 million units. 
• Allowing for pre-1986 production and imports, the U.S. averages about one firearm per person.

Source: Jurgen Brauer, "Demand and supply of commercial firearms in the United States," Journal of Economics of Peace and Security, Vol 8, No 1 (April 2013) .

PEACE | What Happened to Our Dividend?

When the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 and the Soviet Union disintegrated, many of us looked forward to a Peace Dividend, a reduction in military spending that would allow more U.S. Government spending on public needs like health care or education, or tax cuts, or a combination.

We got the tax cuts but the Peace Dividend has melted away. Spending on the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have replaced spending on the Cold War, and U.S. military spending is still at the level it was in 1990.

In FY 2008, the federal budget shows $751.6 billion for defense. This is made up of four elements: (1) DoD spending (line 051) of $583.1 billion, (2) Nuclear weapons in the Department of Energy budget, $24.2 billion, (3) Veterans Administration, $86.6 billion and (4) borrowing cost of unfunded military expenditure, $57.7 billion.

However, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), in the Department of Commerce, shows a higher number for national defense consumption and gross investment expenditure, $734.8 billion. If we again add in Veterans Affairs ($86.6 billion) and interest on military-related borrowing (which BEA figures is $163.0 billion), the total is $984.4 billion, nearly $1 trillion. So how does this compare with 1990?

MilEx as Share of GDP. One measure of the change between 1990 and 2008 is military spending as a share of GDP. The media tend to report the 2008 figure as 4.1 percent. This is the lower line in the first chart below, which I reproduce by permission from Professor Jurgen Brauer of the James M. Hull College of Business at Augusta State University in Augusta, Ga.
Prof. Brauer argues:

But that uses the DoD budget number without the DOE’s nuclear weapons complex, without the VA, and without the interest cost for military-related debt.

If the BEA’s numbers for defense spending are used, as in the top line in the chart, the ratio is 6.9 percent of GDP. By the U.S. government’s own accounts, military expenditure is two-thirds higher than the usual media report.

MilEx as Share of Federal Spending. The second chart shows military expenditure as a percentage of the overall federal budget.
The lower line in this chart ends at 19.9 percent for 2008, about 20 cents of the federal dollar. But Prof. Brauer argues that this is not the right number to use, because the federal budget

is loaded down with transfer payments, that is, monies that come in and go out simply because federal law mandates that they be handled through the feds. Examples are social security contributions that pay for grandpa’s monthly check or money that residents of Oklahoma pay in federal taxes that then go back to Oklahoma to fund schools or build highways there.

When transfer payments are removed, the budget for federal functions is only $1,440.6 billion, of which BEA's $984.4 billion in military expenditure is 68.3 percent, as shown on the top line on the chart. That’s not 20 cents on the federal dollar but 70 cents.

Spending on defense has come down since the 1960s. But compared with 1990 the Peace Dividend has disappeared.

STATE PRODUCT | Few Thrived Under Bush 43

As the Democratic Administration wrestles with huge U.S. economic problems, elected officials can take comfort in the fact that they have an easy act to follow.

The numbers are in, and under Bush 43 only four U.S. states beat the average long-term growth rate.

The four "winner" states that did better than the long-term U.S. per-capita average annual growth rate of 2.5 percent were North Dakota, New York, Louisiana and Montana. (Louisiana wins on a technicality as is explained below.) The other 46 states grew at less than the long-term average growth rate.

The numbers are through 2007, but we know that 2008 was a recession year, so the final numbers by state will be worse.

The state records are on two charts prepared by my friend Professor Jurgen Brauer of the James M. Hull College of Business at Augusta State University in Augusta, Ga. His numbers are from the St. Louis Fed's FRED database, which vacuums population data from the U.S. Census and Gross State Product (GSP) data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

With Prof. Brauer's permission I am using his chart showing average annual real growth in per-capita GSP during the first seven Bush 43 years.

Among the top ten losing states, two showed negative annual per-capita GSP real growth during 2001-2007 (2000 being the base year): Michigan and Georgia. The next eight states all had real growth of less than one percent: Indiana, Colorado, South Carolina, Missouri, Ohio, Alaska, Illinois and New Hampshire. Professor Brauer observes:

Two of the bottom five states in real per-capita GSP average annual growth rates switched from “red” to “blue” in the November 2008 presidential elections.

On the upside, the top state in per-capita GSP real growth was North Dakota, with annual growth of about 3.5 percent. The next nine states were all in the 2-3 percent range on per-capita real growth: New York, Louisiana, Montana, Vermont, Oregon, Maryland, South Dakota, Iowa and Alabama. Professor Brauer adds:

Only four states in the nation beat the long-term per-capita average annual growth rate for the United States of 2.5 percent since the late 1920s. Louisiana is an anomaly for its growth is at least partially explained by the exodus of poor residents following Hurricane Katrina so that the improvement in its average growth rate for the remaining residents is a statistical fiction.

Prof. Brauer's second chart shows the state-by-state per-capita value of economic production in 2007.
The top ten states by per-capita GSP in 2007 are Delaware ($56,500 GSP per capita), Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Alaska, California, Virginia, Minnesota and Colorado (the District of Columbia is not included).

The bottom ten states are Mississippi (less than $25,000 GSP per capita), West Virginia, Arkansas, Montana, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Alabama, Idaho, Maine and Kentucky.

Should the weak economic performance of the states during the 2001-2007 years be a surprise?

Michael Kinsley, writing in the Washington Post in 2005, concluded that the Democrats did better since 1960 on the Republican ("Daddy"-party) criterion of economic prosperity.

From 1960 to 2005 the GDP in year-2000 dollars rose an average of $165 billion a year under Republican presidents and $212 billon a year under Democrats. Measured from 1989, or measured with a one-year delay, or both, the results are similar. [On the] average annual rise in real per-capita income, Democrats score about 30 percent higher.

Bush 43 did not reverse this weak economic record.

BLS | Rising Unemployment Rate Understates the Pain

Concerns are properly growing about the 8.1 percent unemployment rate reported for February and the higher rates that are on their way. But the true pain of unemployment is close to twice this rate. The Bureau of Labor Statistics routinely provides the data to report the higher rate.

The standard unemployment rate averaged 5.8 percent in 2008. A higher number of 10.5 percent takes account of three additional categories, including (1) workers who are too discouraged to look for work, (2) others "marginally attached" to the labor force, and (3) workers who have settled for part-time jobs.

Reporting the higher rate along with the standard one would help make clear why unemployment rates have been higher in much of Europe (France, Germany, Italy, for example) than in the United States. The reason, in part, is that European unemployment benefits extend longer, so workers are recorded as officially unemployed for longer. In the United States, workers settle for part-time work rather than have no job at all.

Differences among U.S. unemployment rates have been nicely summarized by Professor Jurgen Brauer of the University of Georgia at Augusta in his March blog. With his permission I am sharing his lucid exposition

Chart of BLS Unemployment Rates
by Jurgen Brauer

of the different unemployment rates. His chart at right–click on it to get a better view–shows five measures of unemployment and underemployment. Prof. Brauer explains:

The red and the light blue lines both go back to 1960; the others back to 1994. The red line is called U3 unemployment and depicts the United States’ “official” unemployment rate, averaged over the months for the respective year. In 2008, the monthly unemployment rate ranged from 4.8 percent of the civilian labor force in April to 7.1 percent in December, with an average for the year [shown in the chart] of 5.8 percent.

The red U3 line is the number that is commonly reported on a month-to-month basis, i.e., the February rate of 8.1 percent. Recession years–i.e., years when the economy has been in decline–are shown by the dashed vertical lines. Arthur Okun famously used unemployment, numbers for which are available the next month, as a predictor for GDP (which takes several months to estimate). Professor Brauer continues:

The light blue line at the bottom of the chart is called U1. This measures long-term unemployment, namely the proportion of those who are willing and able to work (i.e., people who are actively looking for work) yet nonetheless are unemployed for 16 weeks or more, that is, about 4 months or longer. U1 shows the same up and down pattern as U3, and the reason government officials track it is because it indicates long-term hardship. The other three lines are called U4, U5, and U6 unemployment, respectively, and have been tracked only since 1994.

The three lines add categories of workers who are discouraged or underemployed:

U4 adds in so-called discouraged workers, a subset of those “marginally attached” to the workforce, that is, folks who are willing and able to work but have become so discouraged about their labor market prospects that they have stopped looking for employment.
U5 adds all other marginally attached workers (those who want to work and have looked for work but whose primary reason why they are not in the workforce right now is non-job market related).
U6 rounds this out by including those who are employed part time for economic reasons, that is, they want to work full time but cannot get anything other than part time.

The U4 and U5 numbers only add about one percentage point. But U6, which includes those who say they want and are looking for full-time work but can get only part-time work, adds 3-5 percentage points. In 2008, U3 was 5.8 percent but U6 was 10.5 percent, a difference of 4.7 percentage points, nearly double.