The American economy is huge (producing $18 trillion worth of goods and services every year) and growing (GDP is projected to double over the next fifteen years). Business analysts had projected that the American economy would grow at a rate of 2.5 percent in the second quarter of 2016.
What’s the good news? If you leave out business inventories, then in the second quarter of 2016, the rest of the economy grew at 2.4 percent. Also, consumer spending (which makes up roughly two-thirds of the economy) grew at a rate of 4.2 percent. This reflects the belated rise in wages (by 2.5 percent over last year) and the fall in gasoline prices. The United States International Trade Commission projects that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal could add 128,000 full-time jobs and $42.7 billion to the GDP by its fifteenth year.
What’s the bad news? First, companies have been meeting the rising demand in part by drawing down their inventories, rather than by making new stuff to keep their inventories stocked. If you include inventories, then the economy grew at a rate of only 1.2 percent. This is half the rate calculated if inventories are excluded.
Second, the fall in energy prices has caused energy companies to shut down a lot of production rather than investing; in other sectors, the strong dollar is choking off a lot of sales, so companies aren’t investing as much.
Third, the TPP’s projected job creation and GDP growth projections are pretty small compared to the over-all economy. In addition, it is projected to increase wages by only 0.19 percent over where they will be otherwise.
Fourth, the growth of labor productivity holds the key to economic progress. Labor productivity is the amount of output (stuff) per hour of work. If labor productivity increases, the employers get more stuff to sell at the same labor cost as before. That allows for higher profits, or lower prices to buyers, or higher wages to workers, or—the trifecta—all three. Between 1870 and 2013, the American economy averaged 2.3 percent growth in productivity each year. This made for a gigantic rise in living standards. However, that average disguises differences in productivity growth during the sub-periods. From 1948 to 1973, the annual growth in productivity averaged 2.8 percent. From 1973 to 1995, it averaged 1.4 percent. From 1995 to 2010, it averaged 2.6 percent. From 2010 to 2013, it averaged 0.7 percent.
Apparently no one knows what caused the shifts. No one knows why it suddenly dropped in 1973 or why it dragged along at a low level for two decades; no one knows why it shot up in 1995 and stayed at a high level for fifteen years; no one knows why it fell again in 2010 (after the end of the financial crisis); and no one knows what the poor performance of the last few years portends or when it will end. However, in the first quarter of 2016, it fell by 0.6 percent.
The future is uncertain. Over the short-run, will companies begin investing to meet rising consumer demand or will the investment decline undermine the growth of consumer spending? Over the longer-run, will productivity growth begin rising or will it continue to limp? Will rejection of the TPP leave world trade as it is or will it begin a downward spiral in trade?
 Eduardo Porter, “Uneasy Alternative to an Imperfect Trade Deal,” NYT, 27 July 2016.
 Neil Irwin, “What’s Right and Wrong With the Economy,” NYT, 2 August 2016.
 See: Henry Ford.
 Alan Blinder calculates this as a 25-fold increase.
 Alan S. Blinder, “The Unsettling Mystery of Productivity,” WSJ, 25 November 2014.