No going back

December 23rd, 2008 4:08 pm · 2 comments

Krugman yesterday, and I’ve been thinking this for a while:

Too much of the economic commentary I’ve been reading seems to assume, however, that that’s really all we’ll need — that once a burst of deficit spending turns the economy around we can quickly go back to business as usual.

In fact, however, things can’t just go back to the way they were before the current crisis. And I hope the Obama people understand that.

The prosperity of a few years ago, such as it was — profits were terrific, wages not so much — depended on a huge bubble in housing, which replaced an earlier huge bubble in stocks. And since the housing bubble isn’t coming back, the spending that sustained the economy in the pre-crisis years isn’t coming back either.

This is what the broader public doesn’t understand. The party’s over - though Krugman does suggest that there are roads back:

A few months ago a headline in the satirical newspaper The Onion, on point as always, offered one possible answer: “Recession-Plagued Nation Demands New Bubble to Invest In.” Something new could come along to fuel private demand, perhaps by generating a boom in business investment.

But this boom would have to be enormous, raising business investment to a historically unprecedented percentage of G.D.P., to fill the hole left by the consumer and housing pullback. While that could happen, it doesn’t seem like something to count on.

A more plausible route to sustained recovery would be a drastic reduction in the U.S. trade deficit, which soared at the same time the housing bubble was inflating. By selling more to other countries and spending more of our own income on U.S.-produced goods, we could get to full employment without a boom in either consumption or investment spending.

The problem there is twofold; first, as Krugman notes, export growth has stalled because of the rise of the dollar. But there’s another reason it’s stalling: the possibility of protectionism.

I’m not opposed at all to the idea of protectionism here at home, though of course U.S. protectionism triggers protectionism everywhere else.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Netvouz
  • DZone
  • ThisNext
  • MisterWong
  • Wists

  2 comments  Tags: Economy

There are currently 2 comments on this blog post
View Topic | Comment on this blog
Artie See
12/24/08
9:02 AM
QUOTE (Lancaster Online @ Dec 23 2008, 03:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The problem there is twofold; first, as Krugman notes, export growth has stalled because of the rise of the dollar.

It is inevitable that the dollar will fall significantly over time; its current rise is driven by worldwide economic uncertainty. With massive international trade deficits, Federal budget deficits, and a $12+ trillion national debt, there is no other direction that the dollar can take. Of course, this will inevitably lead to a reduced standard of living for all of us, but it will also help transform the U.S. away from being a nation of debtors.

My feeling is that, with an APPROPRIATE amount of regulation (neither too much nor too little), the U.S. economy eight years from now will be far more sustainable than it has been for the last eight years. But for this to happen, our greed-driven borrow-and-spend country (individuals, businesses, and governments at all levels) MUST behave much more responsibly. My guess is that we will all have no other choice.
gsmart
12/24/08
9:10 AM
QUOTE (Artie See @ Dec 24 2008, 10:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
My feeling is that, with an APPROPRIATE amount of regulation (neither too much nor too little), the U.S. economy eight years from now will be far more sustainable than it has been for the last eight years. But for this to happen, our greed-driven borrow-and-spend country (individuals, businesses, and governments at all levels) MUST behave much more responsibly. My guess is that we will all have no other choice.


But we won't behave more responsibly - irresponsible behavior is simply an inevitable aspect of the system we have.

If you haven't seen it, check out Arianna Huffington's bit yesterday, "Laissez-faire capitalism should be as dead as communism" - but even moreso than that, Henry Blodget's bit in the Atlantic, "Why Wall Street always blows it" (and will again).
View Topic | Comment on this blog