Harold's Left:
Paul Krugman is perhaps my favorite economist in the world. His book Conscience of a Liberal is a brilliant illustration of liberal ideals and how they have continued to make us more economically stable throughout history. So this begs the question then. Why would Obama pick Larry Summers over Krugman to head up his economic team? Well, because Obama is a centrist grabbing maniac and it this point it has become sickening. First off, Larry Summers was part of the three-man team who's policy of strict de-regulation lead to the collapse of the derivatives market in 2007, which essentially trashed the economy. The other two men? Timothy Geithner and Alan Greenspan. Two of the biggest free-marketeers of the last 15 years... and no wonder we can't get the stimulus we need. This is interesting because Krugman was a vital part of the Obama campaign in 2008 and one of his biggest spokesmen on the campaign trail. So why not when it actually counts?
Krugman has asserted that even though we see a growth in GDP of 3.5% right now, we still are seeing the sort of growth in the private sector yet to force unemployment rates down. Here's his argument in an Op-Ed in the New York Times:
The good news is that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a k a the Obama stimulus plan, is working just about the way textbook macroeconomics said it would. But that’s also the bad news — because the same textbook analysis says that the stimulus was far too small given the scale of our economic problems. Unless something changes drastically, we’re looking at many years of high unemployment.
And the really bad news is that “centrists” in Congress aren’t able or willing to draw the obvious conclusion, which is that we need a lot more federal spending on job creation.
About that good news: not that long ago the U.S. economy was in free fall. Without the recovery act, the free fall would probably have continued, as unemployed workers slashed their spending, cash-strapped state and local governments engaged in mass layoffs, and more.
The stimulus didn’t completely eliminate these effects, but it was enough to break the vicious circle of economic decline. Aid to the unemployed and help for state and local governments were probably the most important factors. If you want to see the recovery act in action, visit a classroom: your local school probably would have had to fire a lot of teachers if the stimulus hadn’t been enacted.
And the free fall has ended. Last week’s G.D.P. report showed the economy growing again, at a better-than-expected annual rate of 3.5 percent. As Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com put it in recent testimony, “The stimulus is doing what it was supposed to do: short-circuit the recession and spur recovery.”
But it’s not doing enough.
Suppose that the economy were to keep growing at 3.5 percent. If that happened, unemployment would eventually start falling — but very, very slowly. The experience of the Clinton era, when the economy grew at an average rate of 3.7 percent for eight years (did you know that?) suggests that at current growth rates we’d be lucky to see the unemployment rate fall by half a percentage point per year, meaning that it would take a decade to return to something like full employment.
Worse yet, it’s far from clear that growth will continue at this rate. The effects of the stimulus will build over time — it’s still likely to create or save a total of around three million jobs — but its peak impact on the growth of G.D.P. (as opposed to its level) is already behind us. Solid growth will continue only if private spending takes up the baton as the effect of the stimulus fades. And so far there’s no sign that this is happening.
So the government needs to do much more. Unfortunately, the political prospects for further action aren’t good.
What I keep hearing from Washington is one of two arguments: either (1) the stimulus has failed, unemployment is still rising, so we shouldn’t do any more, or (2) the stimulus has succeeded, G.D.P. is growing, so we don’t need to do any more. The truth, which is that the stimulus was too little of a good thing — that it helped, but it wasn’t big enough — seems to be too complicated for an era of sound-bite politics.
But can we afford to do more? We can’t afford not to.
Post a Comment 0 comments: