Opinion

Let's Get Fiscal

»

by: Paul Krugman, The New York Times

photo
Nevada has one of the highest unemployment rates in the US. Shelters are so overcrowded that homeless tent cities are developing in view of the casinos in downtown Reno. (Photo: Getty)

    The Dow is surging! No, it's plunging! No, it's surging! No, it's ...

    Nevermind. While the manic-depressive stock market is dominating the headlines, the more important story is the grim news coming in about the real economy. It's now clear that rescuing the banks is just the beginning: the nonfinancial economy is also in desperate need of help.

    And to provide that help, we're going to have to put some prejudices aside. It's politically fashionable to rant against government spending and demand fiscal responsibility. But right now, increased government spending is just what the doctor ordered, and concerns about the budget deficit should be put on hold.

    Before I get there, let's talk about the economic situation.

    Just this week, we learned that retail sales have fallen off a cliff, and so has industrial production. Unemployment claims are at steep-recession levels, and the Philadelphia Fed's manufacturing index is falling at the fastest pace in almost 20 years. All signs point to an economic slump that will be nasty, brutish - and long.

    How nasty? The unemployment rate is already above 6 percent (and broader measures of underemployment are in double digits). It's now virtually certain that the unemployment rate will go above 7 percent, and quite possibly above 8 percent, making this the worst recession in a quarter-century.

    And how long? It could be very long indeed.

    Think about what happened in the last recession, which followed the bursting of the late-1990s technology bubble. On the surface, the policy response to that recession looks like a success story. Although there were widespread fears that the United States would experience a Japanese-style "lost decade," that didn't happen: the Federal Reserve was able to engineer a recovery from that recession by cutting interest rates.

    But the truth is that we were looking Japanese for quite a while: the Fed had a hard time getting traction. Despite repeated interest rate cuts, which eventually brought the federal funds rate down to just 1 percent, the unemployment rate just kept on rising; it was more than two years before the job picture started to improve. And when a convincing recovery finally did come, it was only because Alan Greenspan had managed to replace the technology bubble with a housing bubble.

    Now the housing bubble has burst in turn, leaving the financial landscape strewn with wreckage. Even if the ongoing efforts to rescue the banking system and unfreeze the credit markets work - and while it's early days yet, the initial results have been disappointing - it's hard to see housing making a comeback any time soon. And if there's another bubble waiting to happen, it's not obvious. So the Fed will find it even harder to get traction this time.

    In other words, there's not much Ben Bernanke can do for the economy. He can and should cut interest rates even more - but nobody expects this to do more than provide a slight economic boost.

    On the other hand, there's a lot the federal government can do for the economy. It can provide extended benefits to the unemployed, which will both help distressed families cope and put money in the hands of people likely to spend it. It can provide emergency aid to state and local governments, so that they aren't forced into steep spending cuts that both degrade public services and destroy jobs. It can buy up mortgages (but not at face value, as John McCain has proposed) and restructure the terms to help families stay in their homes.

    And this is also a good time to engage in some serious infrastructure spending, which the country badly needs in any case. The usual argument against public works as economic stimulus is that they take too long: by the time you get around to repairing that bridge and upgrading that rail line, the slump is over and the stimulus isn't needed. Well, that argument has no force now, since the chances that this slump will be over anytime soon are virtually nil. So let's get those projects rolling.

    Will the next administration do what's needed to deal with the economic slump? Not if Mr. McCain pulls off an upset. What we need right now is more government spending - but when Mr. McCain was asked in one of the debates how he would deal with the economic crisis, he answered: "Well, the first thing we have to do is get spending under control."

    If Barack Obama becomes president, he won't have the same knee-jerk opposition to spending. But he will face a chorus of inside-the-Beltway types telling him that he has to be responsible, that the big deficits the government will run next year if it does the right thing are unacceptable.

    He should ignore that chorus. The responsible thing, right now, is to give the economy the help it needs. Now is not the time to worry about the deficit.

»


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR IS TRUTHOUT ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live.

I would guess that when

I would guess that when McCain was talking about "spending" he meant any social welfare or benefit programs. I'm sure he plans to keep military spending at current levels if not increasing them. And he'll probably continue bailing out the banking & financial services industry. I'm sure his crony Gramm will make sure of that, just like he'll make sure there's no more appropriate response as well--like reimposing regulation such as the Glass-Steagall Act. For the "conservative" or neocon GOP, the only bad spending is spending that benefits the middle class & lower income.

Please oh please let Obama

Please oh please let Obama win. We must overcome the fraud and cheating -- and let's put thinking people back in charge of government. Bye-bye free marketeers. We won't miss you. And I am frankly glad to see Alan Greenspan disgraced BEFORE he passes on. I want him to know what he's left us with. We must put every effort into a zero-carbon energy infrastructure. Obama is smart enough to get it.

Nobel or not, the only way

Nobel or not, the only way any of this is going to happen is to keep the corporate controllers happy. So, for example, instead of taking money from the Pentagon, which clearly ain't gonna happen anyway, let's just re-task and let them have the infrastructure rebuilding contracts - you know, Iraq-style. We'll trade ya "star wars" for bridges and roads, see, and y'all can still gouge the living shit out of us. Instead of new nukes, how bout working on the power grid? That carrier and sub we don't need? Sewers, water systems, etc. Does Halliburton or GE or Bechtel give a f**k where their obscene profits come from, or do they just want the obscene profits? Blackwater and Triple Canopy would make great forest firefighters and levee builders and wind-power installers, wouldn't they? Lots of jobs, way less senseless death, world respect - and the same gobs of cash for the friends of the family. What's the problem?

The Right Wing rants about

The Right Wing rants about controlling spending, yet spends profusely on there own agenda. Military spending on trumped-up wars, bailouts of Wall Street are not seen as deficit spending. But social programs get short shrift. It is as though the Republicans want to spend the country into bankruptcy to make sure there is no money left for those despicable social programs.

Socialism-not capitalism-is

Socialism-not capitalism-is good. American "Christians" can learn a lot from the charity of Muslims and the American economy can learn a lot from Scandinavia. Time to read or reread Small is Beautiful!

It's so wonderful to read

It's so wonderful to read these intelligent and meaningful comments about Krugman's column. The only trouble with using the defense budget to build roads and schools rather than Hummers and missiles is that the folks who have the big bucks are in charge of those industries. It's going to take a whole bunch of us pulling on the rope to win this tug-of-war. There's a reason the defense budget is so huge - these powerful businessmen have made out like bandits for years and more of them are joining the fold every day as we privatize more and more of the army and navy. They're advancing on the schools and I wouldn't be surprised to hear a call for private fire departments, etc. It's going to be difficult, but I really hope we can do it. It's a no-brainer. End of rant.

Krugman is nuts despite his

Krugman is nuts despite his Nobel!! Where is all that money coming from? ...where else, the future - it is simply forestalling the inevitable which is a huge grinding depression for years - the natural consequence of decades of excessive debt and greed. The longer paying the Piper is put off, the worse it will be and already it will be very bad. Krugman must know this and is lying or he is a very ignorant man. If he knows it, he is doing a great disservice to us in the long run by blogging euphemistically.

The inflation and

The inflation and unemployment numbers (even with the calculations used, which have be so manipulated so as to be relatively meaningless) have long past the point at which they begin to feed of off themselves. Busting the budget is not only the only way out, it is also the method that will have the quickest return on investment. In seriously addressing our energy, environmental, climate change, infrastructure, healthcare and educational problems, we will also be creating good paying jobs (which are what creates good paying jobs and prosperity). This will also replenish government coffers on all levels through income and sales taxes. Then we can address creating a budget more in line with the needs of the times. The most obvious place to look would be in the Defense budget. The issues above are our biggest threats to national security, therefore the defense budget should reflect that reality. We need a 21st century defense policy, not a 20th Century (cold war) defense policy.

My concern with the

My concern with the “bailout” is that it treats only a symptom of the current financial crisis (financial institutions running out of money) rather than the underlying cause (homebuyers unable to make their mortgage payments). Instead, of this costly bailout package, I suggest the federal government draw up a “lease-back” option that could be initiated by any homebuyer who is in danger of falling behind (or has fallen behind) on their mortgage payments. The homebuyer would simply invoke the “lease-back” option by contacting their mortgage holder, who would then freeze the original mortgage in the exact condition existing at the time the homebuyer called, and initiate an open-ended lease agreement. While the “lease-back” option is in place the homebuyer/renter would reduce the amount of their monthly mortgage payment by 20% and send the reduced monthly amount (in a timely manner) to their mortgage holder. The homebuyer/renter could rescind the “lease-back” option and have the original mortgage reinstated (with no penalty) when their financial situation improves. For the homebuyer the “lease-back” option would avoid the emotional trauma and financial stigma of foreclosure while allowing them to rent the house they’re in. They would not be forced to find other housing, put down a security deposit, and move their family and belongings. The reduced monthly payment amount would provide the homebuyer with a financial cushion to deal with rising fuel costs and to manage unexpected setbacks such as illness or job loss. By freezing their current mortgage before an interest rate reset increased their mortgage payment beyond their means, homebuyers would gain time to improve their financial situation, restructure their mortgage, or refinance the home with a more appropriate type of mortgage for their situation. This would also enable them to retain any equity they had acquired before invoking the “lease-back” option. The mortgage holder would benefit too, by retaining the asset on their books at the value listed in the original sales contract. The mortgage holder would also retain their current equity stake in the property while receiving a monthly rental payment equal to 80% of the original mortgage. This rental income would help replenish their cash reserves and provide capital for future loans. The mortgage holder would also avoid the cost, asset devaluation and hassle of a foreclosure. And we taxpayers would benefit as well. The “lease-back” option would cost taxpayers nothing and would treat the underlying problems of escalating foreclosures and declining home values that are driving the current financial crisis. It would also protect communities from the abandoned, unkempt, often deteriorating homes resulting from foreclosures — homes that attract vandals and erode property values. The “lease-back” option would defuse the financial crisis at hand and buy time to craft reasonable, practical and manageable regulations that ensure financial integrity going forward. Other concerned citizens may have different solutions that provide a better alternative than simply throwing money at the companies that caused this debacle. I just hope our leaders are listening.

Infrastructure and

Infrastructure and alternative energy investments make sense, but these things cannot form the basis of future economic competitiveness for the USA. The big money is going to be made in biotech and nanotech. We have some advantages in these arenas, but not nearly as many as we used to. Our big problem is our lack of interest in investing heavily in the next generation of Americans. Instead, we steal from their future earning power in an amazing variety of ways. So far we've stolen tens of $trillions from them. I keep asking myself, Why? I'm forced to conclude that Americans still subscribe to the notion that slavery is a good thing -- that it's good for business, or something. Personally, I think slavery is a very bad thing that hurts not only the slaves, but also the slaveowners. And it's the antithesis of what America is all about. America, as George Schultz so eloquently put it, is "the idea of freedom". Indeed, the whole notion of a "free market" depends on well-informed actors who collectively are wiser than any government. We have moved so very far from that, now.

I'd like to support David

I'd like to support David Meggyesy's comments above about how military spending hurts us all, by doing something I do from time to time - quoting a Republican, on this case President Dwight David Eisenhower. His lifetime of military service taught General Eisenhower a perspective of which the current neo-conservative leaders of our country and their close advisors are obviously ignorant. In 1953, in his first months in the President's office, he told us: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending its money alone — it is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.” True then, even truer now, 55 YEARS LATER! What kind of earthly Paradise could those sums of money have built? Estimates for a auto/rail/pipeline bridge across the Bering Sea including all infrastructure and landside linkages come in at $30 billion dollars, allowing a truck to be loaded in Chicago and unloaded in Paris. A practical 'space elevator' (Google it...) is estimated at about the same price. When all the medical bills for maimed Iraq war vets finally get paid, the cost will approach at least three trillion dollars... What might that money have accomplished if it had gone for medical research instead?

I expect Obama to win, and

I expect Obama to win, and that the news that he and his advisors are serious about pumping real money, tax credits, and regulatory incentives into energy conservation first, non-combustion renewable energy second, and non-corn derived ethanols and vegetable oil/diesel fuel substitution third will change the economic outlook dramatically. Real energy efficiency efforts will require that workers with low or moderate skill levels will have to be hired and paid to find and stop every air, steam or water leak, insulate every heated wall, replace every mismatched industrial electric motor and the myriad other leaks in our national energy 'bucket'. We are so dramatically wasteful of energy throughout our economy that I fear we will run out of unemployed workers in tackling this massive and labor-intensive job. Jobs mean cash in the economy instantly - along with ripple effects as those workers spend their money. The energy equivalent of a barrel of oil saved by plugging energy leaks this year will also be saved next year and the year after, etc, with no additional cost. Similar job impacts will occur through enacting other parts of the Obama platform - especially if we have a filibuster-proof Congress after November 4th. The news that these initiatives are coming will give people hope for their immediate future - and the economy runs on hope... We presently seem to have a President who might as well have been carved from a log...

There is never a “good”

There is never a “good” time to worry about the deficit. True, we can’t think about paying it off now (will we ever be in that position again?) but economic plans need to minimize the addition to the deficit as much as possible. For example, I think that people should not be protected against foreclosures on second homes, unless there are extreme extenuating circumstances.

Well I hope they extend

Well I hope they extend unemployment benefits, because mine are about to run out. I got laid off three months ago, and I have had no luck in finding a new job. I have almost given up on my chosen career and now I'm simply looking for customer service jobs, and that's not panning out either! Anxiety is building, and I don't know what I will do when my unemployment runs out. What can I do to get a job?

How about taking 20 % of the

How about taking 20 % of the 2009 military budget and direct it to creating the renewable energy and existing infrastructure. Create CCC, WPA type programs to put people to work. Why so few talking about this "elephant in the living room" reality of our military spending, that ultimately produces nothing of value to people. This is the huge drag on our economy. military spending and overreach brought many countries down. Why do we think we are different. More than half of our national budget will go to military spending in 2009. Who are our enemies?

As the economy shrinks, the

As the economy shrinks, the Government is the only hope to keep it from grinding to a halt. No matter what the politicians promise - we will require our government to do deficit spending to avoid a depression. The government can save the power elite and the multinational corporations with this money. Or it can invest in clean energy, fuel efficiency technologies, improved infrastructure, schools and health care technologies which make America a leader in the technologies of the coming century. The only way out of the housing bubble is to let home prices fall. This requires lowering the debt owed on inflated mortgages to the market value of the house. Just like the internet bubble - those stocks had to go to their intrinsic value. Trying to maintain home prices is will cause slow destruction of the economy. It is a sunk cost. The sooner the loss it written off, the better for the American people.