Sep 15, 2011 at 1:40 pm
The WaPo features a critical piece today on the job creation associated with the “$38.6 billion loan guarantee program” that was part of the Recovery Act.
On the front page of their website, thepiece was summarized thusly:
“U.S. government says a loan guarantee program that has created 3,545 new permanent jobs is on track to save or create 60,000 jobs. If goal is reached, it would work out to about $640,000 in loan guarantees for each job.”
OK, that’s bad math. The piece is justly critical in other ways, but that part’s way off. They’ve divided the full loan volume—the sum of all loan amounts–by the number of jobs. The correct numerator is the “credit subsidy”—the amount for which tax payers will be on the hook if the loans fail.
That’s likely to be well under $5 billion, which gets you into a much more reasonable neighborhood re bang-for-buck.
The article does point this out: “If the companies do well, they won’t need to draw on the guarantees and won’t cost the government anything.” But their emphasis on this $640K/job number assumes every loan defaults, which is implausible (the piece is partly motivated by the bankruptcy of Solyndra, a solar panel producer that received a $535 million loan from the program).
That said, if the general point of the piece is that it’s very hard to be at all precise in estimating the number of jobs created through guaranteed loans to companies investing in clean energy projects, they’re right.
On the other hand, if the conclusion is that since a) we can’t accurately estimate job creation from such lending programs, and b) some of these investments will go bad, therefore we shouldn’t make the investments, that’s wrong.
History is clear that private markets will under-invest in some of these types of new ideas and technologies—the returns are too uncertain (see railroads through internet). And we should absolutely expect bankruptcies, like Solyndra, along the way. But in the interest of fostering innovation in the production of clean energy and building market share in a globally expanding sector, there are good reasons for the government to have provided seed capital in the form of these subsidized loans, especially given the recession and the jammed financial markets back in 2009.
Thank you for joining the conversation. Comments are limited to 1,500 characters and are subject to approval and moderation. We reserve the right to remove comments that: