What Saved Us? WSJ: Self-Correcting, Monetarism; vs. Keynesian Krugman: Big Government, Fiscalism
WALL STREET JOURNAL -- The larger story here is that the economy’s natural healing tendencies are asserting themselves. Banks are writing down bad loans, raising new capital, and in general cleaning up their balance sheets. Having reduced their inventories to the nub, manufacturers are looking to increase production at the first sign of demand. Households have also been improving their balance sheets by saving more. The rush to exploit the federal “cash for clunkers” car-purchase subsidy testifies that consumers have money that they will spend when they conclude that their jobs are safe and they have some financial breathing room.
Aiding all of this has been the unprecedented monetary stimulus provided by the Federal Reserve, pushing liquidity that has helped to revive the credit and stocks markets. The $800 billion Obama spending stimulus has by definition been a bit player, since only a little more than 10% of it has even been spent. We’d be better off recalling the money.
PAUL KRUGMAN -- So it seems that we aren’t going to have a second Great Depression after all. What saved us? The answer, basically, is Big Government.
Probably the most important aspect of the government’s role in this crisis isn’t what it has done, but what it hasn’t done: unlike the private sector, the federal government hasn’t slashed spending as its income has fallen. (State and local governments are a different story.) Tax receipts are way down, but Social Security checks are still going out; Medicare is still covering hospital bills; federal employees, from judges to park rangers to soldiers, are still being paid.
In addition to having this “automatic” stabilizing effect, the government has stepped in to rescue the financial sector. You can argue (and I would) that the bailouts of financial firms could and should have been handled better, that taxpayers have paid too much and received too little.
Last and probably least, but by no means trivial, have been the deliberate efforts of the government to pump up the economy. From the beginning, I argued that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a k a the Obama stimulus plan, was too small. Nonetheless, reasonable estimates suggest that around a million more Americans are working now than would have been employed without that plan — a number that will grow over time — and that the stimulus has played a significant role in pulling the economy out of its free fall.
All in all, then, the government has played a crucial stabilizing role in this economic crisis. Ronald Reagan was wrong: sometimes the private sector is the problem, and government is the solution.
Originally posted at Carpe Diem.
25 Comments:
And thus Krugman ensures that he will have the admiration of big government Liberals and politicians for many years to come.
Government just can't lose for winning, in the eyes of Krugman. The reason for the stimulus package was to save the country. Most of the money was not spent so now it is other big government spending that saved us. During the process, trillions of dollars of assets, purchased at deep discounts, were accumulated by insiders.
Well this is hardly the first time Krugman has ranted on foolishly...
In 2004 Krugman foolishly defended the government's Ponzi Scam...
Will Wilkinson of the Cato Institute debunked Krugman's opposition to personal retirement accounts: Noble Lies, Liberal Purposes,
and Personal Retirement Accounts
Krugman says: "Tax receipts are way down, but Social Security checks are still going out; Medicare is still covering hospital bills; federal employees, from judges to park rangers to soldiers, are still being paid"...
So what are those bills actually being covered with? Inflated dollars?
BTW the site, 'Calculated Risk' notes that GDP is now 3.9% below the recent peak. In terms of declines in real GDP, the current recession is the worst since quarterly records have been kept (starting in 1947).
I wonder how Krugman will rationalize that?
And here lies the problem with economics. Without the ability to conduct a controlled experiment, we will never be certainty of what saved us or even if we needed saving at all.
While we can use logic, natural experiment or econometrics might to get to the answer. I have doubts that any of the following will change many peoples minds.
I wonder at what point Krugman slipped into delusion. I mean he must have once been a normal person before he became so enamored of government.
Dion: True. But one can look at the other nations of the world as case studies for what works economically. Time and time again, those nations with free economies enjoy stronger economic growth and deliver more goods and services to their people. It is in fact so clear from the evidence that statism is antithetical to prosperity that one must question the intelligence of those who advocate socialism in any form.
Anon: And your point is what?
"So it seems that we aren’t going to have a second Great Depression after all."
No, we are having the 1970's inflation again; what a relief! Some people are discounting this recession a bit too soon, me thinks.
Who's "reasonable estimates"? Where is this blithering moron?
Most of the stimulus funds spent so far have been to extend unemployment benefits and maintain medicare and medicaid payments. These are neither stimulative nor do they sustain employment. The $13 a week Americans got in less withholding couldn't pay my coffee bill. Cash for Clunkers didn't save any jobs either - it was a one-off boon which will disappear.
Of course when 90% of the labor force is still working there is plenty of money still out there and people respond to incentives. Pavlov proved this a century ago. We didn't need to spend billions to learn it again.
Krugman is an idiot.
Things improved at the beginning of Roosevelt's administration only to dive again due to government interference. Cotrast the 1920's with the 1930's.
Anonymous:
From 1920 to 1930 real gdp growth averaged 2.9%.
From 1930 to 1940 real gdp growth averaged 3.0%.
I assume that is the point you wanted to make
Source: BEA
By the way, did you notice that despite the increase in the minimum wage that the teenage unemploymment rate fell last month.
FDR forced Americans to turn in their money at $20 per oz gold and then returned it at $35 per oz. FDR created "growth" by trashing the dollar.
It's funny when leftist economists try and spin the Great Depression as one of the best economic times in American history.
Does Krugman really believe everything he says? Maybe he just positions himself all the way to the Left because he knows it's in his best interest to do so.
If there's one prominent economist out there that will side with government and against the free markets all of the time, and ignore what fundamental econ theory and history tells us, he's obviously going to be the superstar media econ go-to guy. Krugman has successfully positioned himself into that role.
At some point people have to question if he really believes what he espouses, or if there's some vested interest in him taking the extreme left-wing position all of the time.
Who decided we were saved? Nothing has changed. The only thing that remains to be seen is how much socialist parasitism and tyranny our society can support.
Better? How is the real economy getting better? Productive, high paying jobs are being lost while unproductive government make-work jobs take their place.
From what I can see the federal government is bankrupt and has to resort to money printing and borrowing from foreign governments in order to keep the game going. The states are in an even worse condition because they can't print money to meet obligations and consumers are having major problems staying afloat.
The US will not be saved until the size of government is cut down substantially and the unfunded liabilities are defaulted on. While an injection of liquidity can postpone the disaster it will do nothing to create wealth. In fact, given the policies being pursued by the Obama administration it looks as if the US is headed towards the abyss even faster than it was before.orines
Krugman is technically correct. The Obama stimulus may have saved up to 1 million government jobs, but there lies the problem. The government needs a quick and massive Creative-Destruction process, similar to the bursting of the tech bubble, mostly between 2000-02, although non-tech firms also became more efficient, producing more output with fewer inputs.
If Krugman were to advocate a huge reduction in government to counter balance the coming recovery of the private sector, I could believe he's not an idealistic tool.
But he clearly only believes in the "stabilizing" effect of government in one direction.
As for the "Depression" comparison, can anyone tell me the 2008 GDP growth vs 2007 GDP? I'm pretty sure it must have been a huge decrease for all the fear he has.
Sometimes Krugman's analysis is mind numbingly ignorant. There are 2 kinds of recessions...credit driven and inventory driven. This is the former. So lets get this straight. First the FED/Regulators created the bubble. Then they bailed out the system. Exactly where did the government save the free market? Further, they admit only about 120 billion has been spent of the stimulus...but its all better now? Fine, cancel the rest of it.
Spencer says: "From 1920 to 1930 real gdp growth averaged 2.9%.
From 1930 to 1940 real gdp growth averaged 3.0%."...
Really?
FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
Spencer says: "By the way, did you notice that despite the increase in the minimum wage that the teenage unemploymment rate fell last month"...
Hmmm, this seems to be at odds with Erica Alini's WSJ article: For white teenagers ages 16 and up, July's jobless rate of 22.2% was the highest since record-keeping began in 1954; among African-American teens, it was 35.7%, nearly four times the national average of 9.4%...
Spencer says: From 1920 to 1930 real gdp growth averaged 2.9%.
From 1930 to 1940 real gdp growth averaged 3.0%."
Let me paint you a picture. You have $100 in BFE stock. For the next year it grows at 2.9%. Then, one day, the chief innovator/founder dies and the stock crashes by 50%. Then the stock grows by 3% for the next year.
The question: are you better after year 1 or year 2?
@ VangelV,
Yes, we are in a recession (duh) but is it not both a credit and an inventory recession? We have a lot of liquidity for the large financial institutions and they are not lending to businesses. New and existing entreprises are choked off from loans to grow and create more jobs. I hope that when the banks lend again it will be with conservative standards and I hope it is soon.
I hope that when the banks lend again it will be with conservative standards and I hope it is soon
The banks are technically insolvent. The federal government is broke. The states are broke. Consumers are broke.
The US is in a lot of trouble and the real economy is far from healing. As I wrote before, we could see a postponement of the contraction that has been going on since 2000. But a postponement does not get rid of the structural problems that are in place. The future will be bleak for quite some time. As long as government programs consume such a huge percentage of the real economy the decline will continue. I would certainly be looking to hedge my exposure to the USD by looking to purchase precious metals during the inevitable pull-backs and by looking to get exposure to real assets.
The estimate of the spending multiplier has gradually declined over time, and the economists of the Obama Administration estimated it as less than 2. (See, for example, here: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/01/obamas-multipliers.html)
My reaction to the falling multiplier has been that we should not use fiscal policy because the macroeconomic effects of changing spending and taxes are weak compared to their other effects. Krugman and others see a different implication--that because it is such a weak tool that does not work well, we need to use it in massive amounts.
I wonder how Krugman would react to a similar argument on the supply-side effects of tax cuts--the weaker they are, the bigger we need to make the cuts.
spencer said...
"From 1920 to 1930 real gdp growth averaged 2.9%.
From 1930 to 1940 real gdp growth averaged 3.0%.
...
Source: BEA"
From where exactly are you getting the data? I cannot find GDP data prior to 1929 on the BEA site. On Economagic Real GDP rises from $892.8 in 1930 to $1166.9 billion in 1940 (2000 dollars), and plugging that into the calculator at http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/discount_rate_calculator.htm yields a 2.7% growth rate.
I found data that claims to be NBER data here: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/GDPreal.htm
Using this data I get a growth rate of 2.52 for 1920 to 1930 and 2.13 for 1930 to 1940.
I would like to see how you got your percentage growth rates.
Post a Comment
<< Home