Averting the Worst
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.
Just to be clear: the economic situation remains terrible, indeed worse than almost anyone thought possible not long ago. The nation has lost 6.7 million jobs since the recession began. Once you take into account the need to find employment for a growing working-age population, we’re probably around nine million jobs short of where we should be.
And the job market still hasn’t turned around — that slight dip in the measured unemployment rate last month was probably a statistical fluke. We haven’t yet reached the point at which things are actually improving; for now, all we have to celebrate are indications that things are getting worse more slowly.
For all that, however, the latest flurry of economic reports suggests that the economy has backed up several paces from the edge of the abyss.
A few months ago the possibility of falling into the abyss seemed all too real. The financial panic of late 2008 was as severe, in some ways, as the banking panic of the early 1930s, and for a while key economic indicators — world trade, world industrial production, even stock prices — were falling as fast as or faster than they did in 1929-30.
But in the 1930s the trend lines just kept heading down. This time, the plunge appears to be ending after just one terrible year.
So what saved us from a full replay of the Great Depression? The answer, almost surely, lies in the very different role played by 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.
All of this has helped support the economy in its time of need, in a way that didn’t happen back in 1930, when federal spending was a much smaller percentage of G.D.P. And yes, this means that budget deficits — which are a bad thing in normal times — are actually a good thing right now.
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. Yet it’s possible to be dissatisfied, even angry, about the way the financial bailouts have worked while acknowledging that without these bailouts things would have been much worse.
The point is that this time, unlike in the 1930s, the government didn’t take a hands-off attitude while much of the banking system collapsed. And that’s another reason we’re not living through Great Depression II.
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.
And aren’t you glad that right now the government is being run by people who don’t hate government?
We don’t know what the economic policies of a McCain-Palin administration would have been. We do know, however, what Republicans in opposition have been saying — and it boils down to demanding that the government stop standing in the way of a possible depression.
I’m not just talking about opposition to the stimulus. Leading Republicans want to do away with automatic stabilizers, too. Back in March, John Boehner, the House minority leader, declared that since families were suffering, "it’s time for government to tighten their belts and show the American people that we ‘get’ it." Fortunately, his advice was ignored.
I’m still very worried about the economy. There’s still, I fear, a substantial chance that unemployment will remain high for a very long time. But we appear to have averted the worst: utter catastrophe no longer seems likely.
And Big Government, run by people who understand its virtues, is the reason why.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
96 Comments so far
Show AllObama's failure to implement and generous mainstreet bailout is an important reason the economy is continuing to trend downward. Another is the fact that his bank rescue plan left homeowners to the tender mercies of their abusers.
The fact that he is so slow to act on behalf of the victims when he can see the impact on the economy does not bode well. His unwillingness to seriously regulate Wall Street and the banking/lending industry even though they continue their irresponsible behavior is discouraging.
Obama has demonstrated that he will serve the interests of the ruling elite even though it harms millions and undermines the nation.
July's employment numbers came in better than expected (negative 247,000) lowering total unemployment from 9.5 per cent to 9.4 per cent. That's good. Things are getting worse at a slower pace. But what's striking about the BLS report is that there's no jobs surge in any sector of the economy. No signs of life. Outsourcing and offshoring are ongoing, and downsizing the path to profitability. That's why revenues are down while profits are up. Businesses everywhere are anticipating weaker demand. The jobs report is a one-off event; a lull in the storm before the layoffs resume.
Unemployment is rising, wages are falling and credit is contracting. All the money is flowing upwards to the gangsters at the top.
Mike Whitney: There is no recession,
Counterpunch, 8-10
Yup, there's no recession. It's a depression.
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article23144.htm
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." - George Orwell
So what has really 'improved.' Oh, I see, the RATE OF DECLINE. Have more jobs been created? Manufacturing brought back? No. Do wild swings in the stock market benefit those who have already lost a mint in the 401k scam? Not much. Have the majority of those who lost their homes been put into new ones? No.
Are states upping taxes and cutting social benefits? Yes. Are schools having trouble meeting the needs of a growing student population? Absolutely--just as teachers are being cut from the payroll.
Please, please, quit listening to the number players and paper criminals and look around. Watch the local news and see what's going on close to home, or down the street and notice that house being foreclosed upon.
And especially, take Krugman with a grain of salt, or better yet not at all.
I have a question Mr krugman if huge govt spenditures is always the answer to economic downturns and depressions ?
How is it we never hear of the 1921 depression?
Please compare and contrast govt policy, rate of falling gdp and length of downturn.
Anybody that knows the answer to these questions knows the emperor wears no clothes.
Don't forget about the long depression either 1871-1901 something no one speaks of anymore nor is it taught in any school programme that I have seen
"Anybody that knows the answer to these questions" is a pretty smart dude, if by your question you mean an overview of all downturns, their causes, actions taken, and actions which could have helped, etc. Now if you know all the answers, please enlighten us.
Krugman knows or should know that the market had several bullish trends before hitting it's low 2.5-3 years later.
Seems to me paul is jumping to conclusions especially since heathcare and cap & trade are supposedly still in play.
If these two bills become law Mr krugman will surely be known as the Irving Fischer of our times.
He's already tarnised a brilliant academic reputation by his political wankery.
"He's already tarnised a brilliant academic reputation by his political wankery." Surely you jest. A complete overview of his writing will find he's been more accurate, truthful, and insightful, than 90+% of op-ed writers. No matter how pathetic new health care legislation will ultimately become, it is still likely to help the majority of people to save a few dollars and worry less.
I hope you do not disappear a year from now, Greg, if your 'optimism' does not pan out. Realism does not mean negativism; on the contrary, one must see 'reality' as it is, to make meaningful improvement. It may be that the elite mouthpieces spend too much time in their ivory towers, and not enough time in the trenches (More likely they know and do not care. After all, they are superior [or believe they are] and immune to the troubles of the middle and working classes).
Presently, those that control the paper economy also control the trenches; however, that can change rather quickly. There IS an enormous change coming for mankind (of which climate will likely be a big part), and resources will have to be managed more sanely to provide for the whole. And those who remain part of the me, me, me crowd will find these changes quite uncomfortable. Many will resist with every fiber they can muster, until a giant wave sweeps them away. Unfortunately, they will increase the hardship for billions before they fall--they are the 'Dr. Strangeloves'' who currently control the show.
WHAT????? Krugman has truly outdone himself this time! No one, absolutely no one, has predicted or theorized that massive government spending and quantitative easing would not prop things up temporarily. The case against the government bailouts is that it will PROLONG the poor economy. That instead of this depression lasting 10 years like the first one, which was thanks to govt intervention then, this bigger intervention will make it last 20 years like in Japan. Krugman has now given a "Mission Accomplished" moment to the bailouts that will be fun to laugh about in 5 years. For more intelligent perspective on our economy I suggest Charlie Minter or Peter Schiff.
It's hard to tell because of your grammar whether you think government spending caused the Great Depression or prolonged it. In either case, you're off the wall, even by the standards of the commentators on Common Dreams.I hesitate to use the word 'ignorant', because you probably know something about something, but economics ain't it.
Ah yes. More typical "free market uber alles" rubbish.
What the hell does Japan have to do with any rational relationship to the Great Depression? A long period of stagnation in Japan is so benign compared to the Great Depression that you sound incredibly ignorant. And your whole concept of government intervention making the problem worse in the long run is just plain asinine.
greg:What the hell does Japan have to do with any rational relationship to the Great Depression?
==========================================================================
Both Japan and the Great depression are considered by experts as case studies in deflation.
===========================================================================
greg: A long period of stagnation in Japan is so benign compared to the Great Depression that you sound incredibly ignorant.
============================================================================
No , actually you sound like the ignorant one here. The current multidecade Japanese experience in the capital markets(and real estate value) rivals or exceeds that of the great depression.
===========================================================================
greg:And your whole concept of government intervention making the problem worse in the long run is just plain asinine.
===================================================================================
No: What's asinine is when a financial crisis caused by too much credit, too much liquidity ,excess leverage,and bone headed govt intervention:
The only solution given serious consideration is increasing borrowing magnitudes, increasing spending magnatudies , increasing liquidity , promoting excess leverage by consumers, and virtual nationalization of key sectors of the economy.
How on earth a rational person can expect 4x to solve a problem caused by x is beyond reason with one exception.
It buys votes , but it does not solve the problems created by x.
No: What's asinine is when a financial crisis is caused by too little regulation, by lying from the free market champions, and the free market uber alles crowd want even more freedom to commit their crimes.
How on earth anyone can believe that a truly free market exists is beyond me.
You can stump for any intervention, justify any redistribution, promote any monetary policy and that will coerce the priniciple's of economics to change exactly ZERO.
Oh wait, I'm sorry : The history books are replete with examples where
economic conditions were successfully dictated by decree.
Your "case studies in deflation" sounds like an analysis by an economics student. Look what happened to the people involved, man. A disaster for a huge segment of people in the 1930s was but slight discomfort for the Japanese. " What's asinine is when a financial crisis caused by too much credit, too much liquidity ,excess leverage,and bone headed govt intervention..." Hooray, we agree on this one. Alan Greenspan had a great deal to do with this along with much help from many politicians. Your final thoughts show your grand wisdom in letting everything collapse, and too bad for the many who will suffer terrifically. Oh, yeah, just because things popped back up relatively quickly in 1921, they would certainly do the same again. A truly grand plan from our student.
." The decline in the GNP price deflator from 1920 to 1921 is the largest one-year percentage decline in the series in the more than 120 years covered."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1921_recession
Yeah you are right who would be interested in recovering from a steeper fall in productivity than the great depression and it all being over beginning to end in 18 months?
"The Wall Street crash doesn't mean that there will be any general or serious business depression... For six years American business has been diverting a substantial part of its attention, its energies and its resources on the speculative game... Now that irrelevant, alien and hazardous adventure is over. Business has come home again, back to its job, providentially unscathed, sound in wind and limb, financially stronger than ever before." - Business Week, November 2, 1929
"I see nothing in the present situation that is either menacing or warrants pessimism... I have every confidence that there will be a revival of activity in the spring, and that during this coming year the country will make steady progress." - Andrew W. Mellon, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury December 31, 1929
"While the crash only took place six months ago, I am convinced we have now passed through the worst -- and with continued unity of effort we shall rapidly recover. There has been no significant bank or industrial failure. That danger, too, is safely behind us." - Herbert Hoover, President of the United States, May 1, 1930
"The worst is over without a doubt.”
James J. Davis, Secretary of Labor, June 1930
"Gentleman, you have come sixty days too late. The depression is over." - Herbert Hoover, responding to a delegation requesting a public works program to help speed the recovery, June 1930
"How many men ever went to a barbecue and would let one man take off the table what's intended for nine-tenths of the people to eat? The only way you'll ever be able to feed the balance of the people is to make that man come back and bring back some of that grub that he ain't got no business with!" – Louisiana Senator Huey P. Long, 1934
Entertaining research, Chicanery. Thanks for the reminder.
Quit listening to the so-called 'economic experts.' Use your own eyes and ears to see what's going down. Many of these 'experts' live in a bubble or, worse yet, in fantasy land. Remember how they said outsourcing would be good for us, how we'd send away the crappy jobs and get much better ones? That the benefits of lower prices would outweigh any drop in wages? And that's what we got: unemployment, along with low quality or poisoned products. Either experts are purposely being deceptive of lying to themselves. It doesn't matter because the result is the same.
I don't know whether non-subscribers are able to acces this, but Harper's had a brilliant piece called Barack Hoover Obama in July, http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/07/0082562?redirect=1982284879 and although I first thought "WTF!!" when I saw the headline, I have to admit that the parallels began to be fightening.
Hoover came from humble backgrounds as well as Obama, contrary to FDR, as we know, and it seems that Hoover did grasp more than I had credited him with so far, but then - and here's the parallel - he managed to put the same people in charge who had caused the Great Depression to remedy its fallout.
I didn't know that many FDR ideas had their roots in the Hoover administration which OTOH never got anywhere because - see above.
Anyway, I just thought that it was quite an eye-opening article, albeit sobering, and that it would be a good complement to Krugman's piece.
What surprises me is how many economics geniuses we have in these comment sections and how many of you have all the answers to our problems.
You must spend hours delivering your sermons and bilge-water (look it up) trying to impress your companions in your mutual bull shit.
But, as an American, I would never try to stop you from making idiots out of yourselves, and don't expect to see much more from you that is worth reading.
Great group. Great minds.
Thanks for stopping by.
Sorry we took you away from yelling at the neighborhood kids to stay the hell off your lawn.
It never ends, does it?
· Yr Obd't Servant
You could try to make sense.
And what do you have to offer?
I think Krugman is trying to say that there's a little Alan Greenspan in every economist.
· Yr Obd't Servant
"So it seems that we aren’t going to have a second Great Depression after all".
Krugman, you are a schmuck.
For a professor of Economics it is an intolerable statement.
Go back to Princeton and bore the suckers who think they can forge a living out of the mess you were part in constructing. You are part of the crony system, a beadle, a gofer and part of the scum frothing around the big mouths of the beast.
Actually, in college Krugman was known as "The Fifth Beadle"!
· Yr Obd't Servant
My guess is that you don't really have a clue as to what the Great Depression was like. My other guess is that you're a fool.
Even in a world of "1"s some body will see a "0" . What Mr krugman said here is all true .
I see a great many "0"'s ... they're lined up behind the crooked numbers on the welfare checks written to the banksters.
I do agree this Krugman statement is true: "We haven’t yet reached the point at which things are actually improving; for now, all we have to celebrate are indications that things are getting worse more slowly."
Celebrate, indeed.
So, Quantum physicists are right, there are parallel universes. Paul must live in one of the nicer ones.
There oughta be a law: no going into Federal debt until the FED has exhausted its ability to stimulate the economy via interest rate cuts.
And there oughta be another law: that any Republican who breaks the first law, or even forgets why it is there, should spend 5 years in jail. 'Fiscal Conservatives'? Don't make me laugh.
I propose an online voter initiative and referendum on raising taxes on America's rich to Sweden's levels.
I third the motion.
Hurray! You're starting to catch on. Electronically conducted democracy is the way to go, on all public issues of importance, not just one or two.
Only trouble is (1) hardly anyone thinks it's a good idea, and (2) we have not yet installed the hardware or institutions to make it possible. There is no way you can conduct an 'on-line intitiatve' or referendum using the Web. It requires the voxbox in every dwelling unit, for starters.
I proposed all this 1n 1964; it's about time somebody listened.
I won't argue with your (1), but concerning your (2), if we can buy stuff online with our credit cards, why can't we use our credit cards to buy a voter initiative for ten dollars and have it voted on by credit card, one dollar, one vote per customer? That's a ready made and profitable solution for a website like CD.
If we want to take profit out of it, why not simply vote online like soldiers in Iraq were allowed to do, on a safe site?
Well, let's see why not. First, not everyone has a credit card. Second, not everyone is online. Third, the Web lacks the bandwidth. Fourth, voters need to be registered to ensure everyone get a single vote; the Web can't do that because of how ID's are assigned. Fifth, not everyone has ten dollars.
Sixth, votes need to be based on reliable information, and both sides of an issue must be fairly stated. There needs to be an orderly, democratically maintained agenda so the issues of most importance to most people get taken up first. (The Post Office hands out postage-free cards on which you show your nomination for the agenda; these are counted and the results published daily.) A new institution does the research and conducts the debate.
The debate is broadcast on dedicated channels, live. It is quasi-judicial, with rules, a judge for questions of procedure, direct, cross, and recross questioning, and the ability to subpoena evidence and testimony and compel answers, with criminal sanctions as usual for perjury etc. We are asked periodically Are you ready for the question? When we are, the polling cycle begins, again with immediate display of results. The advocates are assigned to pro and con by chance; they work for the institution on salary.
The above is reason 7: It may take several votes to settle a question, not just one.
I could go on, but not now.
Not a problem solver are you?
I do some inventing on the side.
I second the motion!
P.S. Is anybody else getting lots of spam filter challenges? My submission could be spam, etc.?
I just got one on my first post today. I never encountered it before here.
Let's hope it's a glitch or experimental tweaking of a new feature. I won't comment further, since in my experience less-than-positive remarks about comments management are not tolerated.
· Yr Obd't Servant
It's happened to me before.
It's all in the words, ain't it?
Allow me to paraphrase with better, more accurate words:
The banksters robbed We The People blind with the help of the Peoples' leaders. An 'economic crisis' was triggered.
In response, Our government forced Us - we weren't given a choice - to refill the coffers of the thieving banksters by borrowing from China against Our future tax revenues.
The banksters took Our money, used some to reward themselves for a scam well done, some to buy up the competition, and some to shoot craps on Wall Street. The rest of Our future tax earnings went to lobbyists and advertising.
Somehow, this is referred to as 'averting the worst' - Our government, not 'the' government, but Our government, just handed the thief who stole grandma's pension your kid's college fund in order to 'avert the worst.' Not avert the worst for grandma and your kid, see - you've actually made things much worse for them.
But the worst for BoA is over!
Anyone tempted to imbibe the "the worst of it is over because of big business" pablum of Mr. Krugman should take as an antidote to the pollyanna view of "averted catastrophe" the view of Gerald Celente, predictor of the dotcom and housing market busts, now predicting that, after this "averted worst" has laid waste to the commercial real estate market, the next and greatest bubble to burst will be the "bailout bust" associated with those very "stimulus" packages that are the apple of Mr. Krugman's eye. This bust will precipitate the world, believes Mr. Calente, into the greatest depression in its history. Read it if you have the courage:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14680
Good points Jerry!
Unlike Krugman, and like Calente, many other non-mainstream economists predict that the bailout bubble will burst. (Michael Hudson, Richard Wolff, David Harvey et al.) The expected "recovery" is just a short-term blip of a re-flated baibout bubble. Notice how the price of crude oil has gone way up in the face of declining demand and steady supply?
A good example for econ. 101 students: supply of commodity remains steady, demand falls significantly; what does the "laws of economics" tell us? Price rises of course!
I have a feeling this weeks well choreographed "the worst is over" is the media's last big try at saving the 2009 Christmas' shopping (and media buying) season. If enough don't buy into the set up, me thinks things are going to start taking a very serious nose-dive, and fast.
15% unemployment by Dec. 31st if Krugman and his ilk fail to get consumers to buy into the false story.
Tonight's 3 networks lead story: "The Recession is Over".
We shall see. We shall see.
I visited a different Wal Mart than usual yesterday, it is a great big super Wal Mart about one year old, that at the time I first visited it I thought it was too big for the small town it was in. There are two other small communities that do not have Wal Marts that are close enough that they probably use this Wal Mart though higher gas prices may reduce that.
I was amazed when I realized that the shelves in the canned goods section of the grocery were all only about half full and the clerks were “fronting” the shelves. (Pulling the cans to the front with empty space behind them instead of restocking the shelves.) (The sort of labor intensive policy usually avoided by Wal Mart.)
Something else I noticed were the many skylights in the ceiling and that when the sun was shining the overhead fluorescent lighting turned itself off and then when a cloud came over they turned themselves back on. While I appreciated the savings of energy I couldn’t help but resent the Walton family was now reaping profits from freakin sunshine.
Point being, if Wal Mart is reducing inventory by fronting shelves the economy is a hell of a lot worse than the happy talk about “green shoots” we’re getting in the main stream media.
Quite different from this opinion....
http://informationclearinghouse.
info/article23224.htm
hmmmmmmmm......
Government did not get us out--the taxpayer is footing the bill for lack of government oversight and deregulation.
And that well is running dry without any course correction or accountability.
Government will prop up the illusion, but sooner or later the devil will demand his due. You can bank on that. Nothing has changed, it is just slower.
Paul, Paul, Paul. You're such a nice guy. I like seeing you so optimistic. But I did a trend analysis on unemployment starting with that chart many of us saw from Pelosi's office. You know, the one where this current run on unemployment is compared to the other recessions since the end of WWII? The current trend stands out because on the time scale it's in a nose dive. Simply trending that out to any of the other inverted bell curves of the other recoveries gives us, at minimal, five years for full job recovery (remember, the dot.com bubble was not nearly this bad and it took 4 years to recover, so I, like Paul, am being optimistic with that "5" number). BUT, that's only if the trend were to start to recover right now. The only thing that has actually changed is that the joy stick on the unemployment plane has been, just so every slightly, pulled back. If you see that chart again, note that the trend I plotted goes off the bottom of that chart and extends off the chart to the right. You need three additional sheets of paper the size of the original chart to fit the curve.
I think you're right on with the a best guess of 5 years to full job recovery. The savings rate has been shifting up a touch, which is long term good. And of course stuff wears out, etc., and pent-up demand should start to kick in before too long. Some people have money and feel moderately secure. Especially if they feel some items are available at bargain rates (think housing for instance), they are likely to begin spending.
People, people, people! The sky will surely fall tomorrow! Egads, did any of you read the whole article? "I’m still very worried about the economy. There’s still, I fear, a substantial chance that unemployment will remain high for a very long time." Yes, this is highly likely, and it will suck for a lot of people. Still, for the majority, things will work out with only a little luck. The biggest danger of collapse is over. Everyone commenting here is free to pretend they're great little economists, but golly, I doubt it. I know, I know, kinda too bad everything doesn't collapse so we can start over and finally live in an idyllic paradise.
What existed before the modern recreation of self government in the United States of America???
feudalism run by hereditorial lords/rulers/kings.
IMO, this attack on government/self government is a concerted effort by the descendents of this hereditorial elite to bring about a return to feudalism.
Involving us in never ending wars of neo-colonialism, running up debt and more debt and giving it to these elites, driving as many wedges as possible between the people and ignoring the will of the people in all matters is designed to destroy self government and usher in a return to those horrible days.
GREG R and CATO:
The concerted effort has such abominable features that most people cannot stand to ponder the implications: “Collateral Damage” by E. P Heidner, part I and II.
>>> www.scribd.com/people/documents/2169400-ep-heidner <<<
and
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4675077383139148549
Read Kunstler!
So, let's extend this logic to health care. Government already runs a public option: Medicare. Expanding it to "Medicare for All" would not be as difficult as reinventing the wheel. Most seniors are happy to be on medicare -- it probably beats the private health insurance they had prior to age 65. The process is already in place, we only need to create the framework to expand coverage to everyone. People could still purchase extra coverage from private insurers -- as medicare recipients also do.
Paul,
There is more than one rout to economic depression, the fast track, the meltdown of the financial giants has been averted...for the moment and at the cost of 12 trillion dollars.
There are still plenty of sectors that can fail and bring down the rest of the economy. Hyper-inflation should other nations lose faith in the dollar or if the 12 trillion debt were to be monetized, a collapse of the real estate market, more corporate bankruptcies, widespread bankruptcies of small businesses and should the banksters need another bailout the public might well rise up and prevent it so the banksters could well still bring the economy to its knees or the banksters could withhold loans causing the economy to fail.
And let’s not forget the possibility of widespread social unrest, specifically riots and police over-reaction. With the post 9/11 police forces being armed more like soldiers than police and the massive amounts of firearms in the hands of the public rioting would more resemble warfare than 60’s riots.
Whew! I am so glad I can relax, knowing the house of cards stands as strongly as ever.
Find solace in this, folks: "the government is being run by people who don’t hate government," the corporations, the banksters, the military, three wars and counting, torture, bullying other nations (e.g., Venezuela), threatening Iran every other day, maneuvering in Africa to install more U.S. military bases, the Bush regime's "amendments" to the Constitution, eavesdropping on the citizenry, and such things.
Exactly! I haven't read all of the comments yet, but it's refreshing to be among a majority of Krugman-skeptics for a change.
Beyond his analysis, this seeming aside that seeks to (re)affirm that Obama was surely the right choice is the most telling phrase in the article.
Outsourcing the US Treasury to Goldman-Sachs, and completing his predecessor's Hollow State policy by radically handing control of the nation's finances over to the banksters is not a return to the "good government" ideology once taught in civics classes.
Krugman lacked the necessary neoliberal credentials to become part of Team Obama-- so far. Even a Nobel Prize didn't increase his cachet.
I agree that he's always been a moderate optimist-- e.g. rejecting single-payer health care and advocating a "robust public option" along with squeezing ordinary citizens to fund the "reform" scheme-- but his columns seem to be distinctly ingratiating lately vis-à-vis the Obama maladministration.
Maybe he's hoping for a Cabinet seat in the second term.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Whether they love it or hate it, for those running the gov't it's the same graft-driven gravy train. What's not to like?
Speak for yourself, Mr Krugman.... utter catastrophe is not only not averted, but permeating even the protected worlds of the true believers in the market. Time can be bought (via landgrabs, bailouts, manipulating the market & jockeying for position on the world stage) for only so long. There's a fundamental flaw in the capitalistic hyperindividualism (nonrenewably) fueled by the easy-street complacency and learned helplessness developed over the past few generations.... it is not sustainable. Not ecologically and, however much the iron-fisters try, not militarily/ideologically either. One heckuva fascinating time to be alive. For those of us outside the reassurances of status-quo insulation, there is a very big learning curve awaiting us... a whole world of both danger and opportunity in creative ways to localize our lives in ways that are humane and honoring of life on Earth. Even networked in solidarity with others in the same boat, we may wind up run roughshod over by the 'ownership society' ethic, but liberation from the LIE that security = power over others is an oppressive weight off the psyche that at least gives one a certain quality of life lacking in the collective trance of mammon-worship..... and a willingness to be present to a reality that doesn't come prefabricated from wall street. How as human beings we are to live is changing. Some will probably choose violence, fear, despair or nihilism, but hopefully many will come to share freely our 'intellectual property' enough to realize the absurdity in our Masters of the Universe ambitions and rediscover our place in the Mystery and simply praise Creation.
Brilliant.
You have got to give credit to the GOP. Some of these clowns have bothered to learn American history. They understand all-too-well the ramifications of Franklin D. Roosevelt's victory in 1932 and the effect it had on their political antecedents. So successful was FDR's New Deal at repairing America's social and economic infrastructure after twelve years of Right Wing plunder, the Republicans would not control the executive branch of our government for twenty years. And other than one brief period, they would not control the House of Representatives for a full sixty-two years. They are absolutely determined that history does not repeat itself.
In order for the Republican party to survive politically, Barack Obama - and, thus, you and I - must fail. This very week, when it appeared that the economy might be on the mend, they were out on the talk show circuit, chanting the mantra. "Oh, no!", they bloviated. "the surge in the economy is not because of the president's policies - but in spite of them." Were we to believe the likes of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, President Obama is the Chauncey Gardiner of American politics.
Please.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
So Krugman was wrong, the government did do something about the last depression!!
?
As every one of the preceding comments correctly notes, contrary to Paul Krugman's optimistic spin, conditions for ordinary people continue to worsen.
As long as corporatists such as the Democrats and Republicans front for the wealthy elite who finance them though our thoroughly corrupt political system, real improvement - a fair and just distribution of wealth - is impossible.
More and more Americans are waking up to the above facts. The real question is, what will we do about it?
Is true, non-violent, progressive change even possible here, or will we, as we seem to already be, descend into a 21st century U.S. fascism?
If the mark to market rule was re-enforced this minute the banks would collapse and the Dow Jones would implode.
An accounting trick is what's maintaining the illusion of an economy still standing.
All that toxic junk is still sitting on the bank's balance sheets.
Bernanke hopes that one day the toxic junk will be worth more than a few pennies on the dollar and the banks will be able to declare their solvency.
Ain't gonna happen.
All those loans Uncle Ben gave out are based on this utterly worthless collateral.
We'd be better off bringing in the Amazing Kreskin and asking him to make those losses disappear.
Compared to the 3 card monte Bernanke is playing this would be considered sound economic policy.
I am flabbergasted at Pauls’s decision to ultimately sell out I use to jump at the opportunity to read his articles because of the interesting insight he offered. I am not looking for gloom and doom theories I am in search of genuine intellectual inquiry and unfortunately Paul is coming short of that. I just had a birthday party yesterday and of the 23 people present at my home I was the only one employed and more then half were friends i graduated with from graduate school. Did the Obama Administration finally acknowledge you Paul? I hope it was worth losing some of your most loyal readers.
I completely agree with you! Several weeks ago, I read one of Paul Krugman's columns and I was furious! The column was about inflation, and he was denying that there was such a thing happening. Usually, I don't spend time responding to NY Times op-eds or articles, but in this case, I did -- listing some food items that have doubled in price over the past couple of years, as well other items that have more than doubled. The items I listed were items that most of us can't do without, and therefore, the escalating prices effect all of us. Several other responders talked about their dire circumstances, being without a job, and how their rent has escalated, as well as their utitilities, etc. The comments were from readers who lived in all parts of the United States. So, I wasn't the only furious reader who posted comments that day.
At that time, I quit reading his column. I was so disappointed in his commentary. I didn't read this column, either. However, I was interested in comments from people who post on Common Dreams.
Doesn't Mr. Krugman notice when he makes a trip to the grocery store, or is he living in a bubble -- like our elected officials? Is he talking to real people who walk on the streets of NYC? Evidently, not!
With all due respect professor, you need to come out of your economic bubble and look at the real consequences of this so-called "recovery." Who benefits and who loses?
So our financial institutions will be fine as our society disintegrates through the corporatist policies that continue to enrich the culpable. Perhaps there will even be a few crumbs that will trickle down to feed enough peasants to keep the capitalist machine working for the elite class.
In case you haven't noticed, the infrastructure of our country is imploding. Policy decisions of our government has done little more than reinforce what has been the status quo. We may have backed away from the abyss, but the chasm is substantially wider.
While you may find comfort in the statistics and reports you analyze, the pain and suffering outside the ivory tower is real; and although we may have avoided a second Great Depression, that event may have been our only salvation.
Krugman is all over the place. One week he writes an article saying "we should be very concerned" and the next week, he is a cheerleader saying "Hey, the worst is behind us. That wasn't so bad." Paul, which is it? If you stop drinking the Obama kool aid and see the real truth, you regularly would be publishing articles similar in nature to those by Matt Taibi. He gets it, you don't. The truth is the economy stinks, unemployment will continue to rise, the rich will get even richer, while everyone else daily will continue to be robbed and raped by the oppressive and greedy super-wealthy.
"True, the Hindenburg is not yet flying the way it did prior to May, 1937. But the fireball that brought it down appears to be extinguished. While the charred and twisted framework may not appear flight-worthy now, the worst seems to have been averted."
Paul Krugman is well and asleep in his NY Times office, and his cappuccino is turning cold on his desk.
It may be time to throw a bucket of ice cold water at him to draw him from his slumber.
I had to read this article twice to see if it was just an economist's poor attempt at writing satire. But no, published in the NYT by a guy even liberals tout as the smartest guy around when it comes to money, I had to conclude that he was serious.
Utter catastrophe has been averted for the financial sector. What would "utter catastrophe" look like? No more multi-million dollar bonuses, the amount of which could run a small town for a year?
And wow, maybe a million jobs have been saved. Out of a country of 300 million, what is that, 0.3%? I'm sure that the 3 million people who have been foreclosed on this year, the 50 million uninsured, and the uncountable thousands of homeless are delighted that utter catastrophe has been averted.
And thank goodness we have all those people "who don’t hate government" running things so that we won't need those silly regulations and stuff that could have kept this from happening in the first place.
My question is this: who is paying Krugman and the Times to spin this BS to try to convince us that everything's coming up roses again?
Peak oil, global warming, droughts, floods and agricultural disasters caused by pesticides and genetically modified food are all coming. More financial bubbles will burst. The richest are grabbing up everything and think money will save them. This is what late corporate capitalist patriarchy has brought to the earth.
People in the USA of Goldman Sucks up all the money had better wake from their digital dreams and face the reality that their only hope is organizing and uniting locally, nationally and globally to stop the corporate leeches and their governmental enablers. War has been a great business for the US and too many here bow to militarism even on the left.
Many African women realize women are better at peace than men. American women need to wake up. Tell the Feminist Majority that war in Afghanistan is not making life better for Afghan women. Soldiers don't protect us war begets war and environmental disaster.
Paul,
Please tell me you were hit in the head by a large heavy object before writing this article. Otherwise I will have to believe that you have lost it because the situation is way worse than you can really face or that you have become a schill for the cover-up using your article to anesthetize the public from taking real action. (Is there a new bulge in your back pocket?) Don't get me wrong. The government needs to come up with the answer, but what is going on now will only prolong and worsen the crises in the end-from financial reform, health care reform, civil rights, everything! The government is not acting on behalf of its citizens. It is merely doing what it needs to to keep the constituents fighting amongst themselves while the banksters and corporate theives run off with our lives. Government should come up with the answers to solve this, but only when the people realize that WE are the government!
We already have big government. What Krugman should have said is that we need big government for the people and not the corporations. Ironically, big government for the people is much smaller than big government for the corporations.
Mr. Krugman is a good person, but from my perspective, all of this 'saving' was done to maintain the 1%. Any benefit to the rest of us is merely to pacify the masses.
Meg: I could be wrong, but Mr. Krugman is probably in that 1 percent because of his salary as a Princeton prof and regular check from the NYT.
You are very likely wrong, at least if you assume that Krugman needed saving.
As a tenured Princeton prof, as a Nobel prize winner with a very impressive resume in economics, Krugman doesn't need saving. Even if Princeton somehow went bankrupt and had to close down, Krugman could take his pick of professorships from all over the world.
The "masses" of the US are...obsolete. They clog the highways,hospitals, and are not very nice to look at. They are over fed and under educated - and too many refuse to jump when we say how high. Too many do not listen to talk radio, and too many understand the new media. We can no longer simply remove factories and encourge drug use and distribution where they live. Abortion and drug war have removed quite a few, but not enough.
If the masses want to survive they had better get on the stick. Do they even know what boot straps are these days? I like the way the Chinese elite deal with the masses - they dont even see them as human.
I would say to the masses - quit breeding and start reading! Only one in a thousand of you will make it out of the slums and prisons we built to keep you in. There is a way ...and its called the straight and narrow path, and we own that too.
The "masses" of the US are...obsolete. They clog the highways,hospitals, and are not very nice to look at. They are over fed and under educated - and too many refuse to jump when we say how high. Too many do not listen to talk radio, and too many understand the new media. We can no longer simply remove factories and encourge drug use and distribution where they live. Abortion and drug war have removed quite a few, but not enough.
If the masses want to survive they had better get on the stick. Do they even know what boot straps are these days? I like the way the Chinese elite deal with the masses - they dont even see them as human.
I would say to the masses - quit breeding and start reading! Only one in a thousand of you will make it out of the slums and prisons we built to keep you in. There is a way ...and its called the straight and narrow path, and we own that too.
"The "masses" of the US are...obsolete"
A new swine flu will take care of that.
The severity (mortality rate) will have to be increased and the antidote drug will have to be expensive and in short supply.
The commercial real estate bubble is about to burst. The 24 trillion dollar bailout bubble will burst after that. Our future includes a depression followed by greater wars. Long term peaceful and sustainable living is the sane path forward. The top is corrupt and unable to face rational change. Changing by growing change from the bottom up, peacefully, over time, is the surest path to a better life.
"The commercial real estate bubble is about to burst. The 24 trillion dollar bailout bubble will burst after that."
I agree!
I live in NYC, and due to my economic situation, I walk everywhere I go. Everyone who lives in NYC is aware of escalating real estate prices, and how the escalating prices effect people who don't make hundreds of thousands of dollars per year -- it's a dire situation!
This city has to be in grave financial straits -- worse than the authorities are telling us. In every neighborhood, I see empty commercial spaces, large and small spaces, and also entire blocks that are now empty of businesses, most of which seem to have emptied out since the holiday season. No neighborhood, or area of the city, is immune. And, each day I see additional spaces closed.
For the past few months, Paul Craig Roberts, as well as Michael Hudson, have been reporting that the commericial real estate bubble is about to burst. That day has to be right around the corner!
I also agree with you about the "24 trillion dollar bailout bubble."
The stock market is rising quickly, and the banksters must be manipulating the numbers so that some kind of a bubble is presently in formation. I'm interested in any insight that you might have as to what that bubble might be.
If anyone is interested in knowing more about the $24 trillion -- Glenn Greenwald, on Salon.com, interviewed Neil Barafsky, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP), on July 26, 2009. In the interview, the two men discuss the $24 trillion total of the bailout.
"The commercial real estate bubble is about to burst. The 24 trillion dollar bailout bubble will burst after that."
And then we will see the education bubble : There's trouble ahead for graduates who are competing in the toughest job market in years. Only 19% of them can find a job, as compared to the 50% in 2007 and the 25% in 2008.
And then the next bubble: the student loan bubble (which was fueled by easily-lent money and over-borrowing). Higher education is big money for institutions and lenders alike. . . and they're in big trouble. The institutions and lenders are in the same sinking boat that banks and other financial companies are in. Assets are drowning. And debt and costs are rising.
It won't be a pretty sight.