That’s what readers of the NYT’s Economix blog must be asking. Swagel used his column today to complain:
“The improvement in the budget outlook for this year and the next several has empowered the fiscal ‘ostrich caucus,’ but does not change the reality of a ‘severe long-run fiscal imbalance.’ President Obama has spoken about the need to take on the long-term fiscal challenge. But this requires making difficult choices to address the funding gaps in Social Security and Medicare, and on this Mr. Obama has flinched, setting aside the recommendations of his own Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission and instead putting forward only modest entitlement reform proposals — enough for a talking point but by far not addressing the imbalances. Indeed, in his 2013 State of the Union address, Mr. Obama spoke merely of ‘the need for modest reforms’ in Medicare, when the decisions will be wrenching, not modest, since ultimately they will involve how to allocate health care resources for people in the final year of life when costs, ethics and human dignity crowd around the beeping hospital equipment.”
The most recent projections from the Congressional Budget Office show that the debt to GDP ratio will actually be lower in 2023 than it is at present. The deficit projected for 2023 is just 3.5 percent of GDP, a deficit that implies only a modest increase in the debt to GDP ratio in that year. The need for “wrenching” decisions is not apparent in these projections.
It is worth noting that projections for future deficits have fallen sharply in the last few years, partly due to the budget cuts and tax increases that have been put in place, and partly due to a slower rate of projected health care cost growth, which is the main driver of long-term deficits. In fact, the projected debt for 2023 is now lower than the target set by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the co-chairs of President Obama’s deficit commission. (Swagel mistakenly refers to recommendations from the Bowles-Simpson commission. The commission did not get the necessary majority to make recommendations. The recommendations were those of the co-chairs, not the commission.)
The other point that should be mentioned in any discussion of the deficit is that the cause of large deficits is the economic downturn that followed the collapse of the housing bubble. Prior to the bubble’s collapse the deficits were modest and the debt to GDP ratio was falling. Deficits were projected to remain small well into the current decade.
The larger deficits of the last five years have supported the economy, boosting growth and creating jobs. Since the private sector is not creating demand, there is no alternative to demand generated by the public sector. Smaller deficits mean less growth and fewer jobs.
Unless the dollar falls in value against other currencies, thereby reducing the trade deficit, it will be necessary to run large budget deficits to sustain demand. That story is pretty much dictated by accounting identities, unless the goal is to spur a wave of demand driven by another bubble.
That’s what readers of the NYT’s Economix blog must be asking. Swagel used his column today to complain:
“The improvement in the budget outlook for this year and the next several has empowered the fiscal ‘ostrich caucus,’ but does not change the reality of a ‘severe long-run fiscal imbalance.’ President Obama has spoken about the need to take on the long-term fiscal challenge. But this requires making difficult choices to address the funding gaps in Social Security and Medicare, and on this Mr. Obama has flinched, setting aside the recommendations of his own Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission and instead putting forward only modest entitlement reform proposals — enough for a talking point but by far not addressing the imbalances. Indeed, in his 2013 State of the Union address, Mr. Obama spoke merely of ‘the need for modest reforms’ in Medicare, when the decisions will be wrenching, not modest, since ultimately they will involve how to allocate health care resources for people in the final year of life when costs, ethics and human dignity crowd around the beeping hospital equipment.”
The most recent projections from the Congressional Budget Office show that the debt to GDP ratio will actually be lower in 2023 than it is at present. The deficit projected for 2023 is just 3.5 percent of GDP, a deficit that implies only a modest increase in the debt to GDP ratio in that year. The need for “wrenching” decisions is not apparent in these projections.
It is worth noting that projections for future deficits have fallen sharply in the last few years, partly due to the budget cuts and tax increases that have been put in place, and partly due to a slower rate of projected health care cost growth, which is the main driver of long-term deficits. In fact, the projected debt for 2023 is now lower than the target set by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the co-chairs of President Obama’s deficit commission. (Swagel mistakenly refers to recommendations from the Bowles-Simpson commission. The commission did not get the necessary majority to make recommendations. The recommendations were those of the co-chairs, not the commission.)
The other point that should be mentioned in any discussion of the deficit is that the cause of large deficits is the economic downturn that followed the collapse of the housing bubble. Prior to the bubble’s collapse the deficits were modest and the debt to GDP ratio was falling. Deficits were projected to remain small well into the current decade.
The larger deficits of the last five years have supported the economy, boosting growth and creating jobs. Since the private sector is not creating demand, there is no alternative to demand generated by the public sector. Smaller deficits mean less growth and fewer jobs.
Unless the dollar falls in value against other currencies, thereby reducing the trade deficit, it will be necessary to run large budget deficits to sustain demand. That story is pretty much dictated by accounting identities, unless the goal is to spur a wave of demand driven by another bubble.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Robert Samuelson used his column today to dismiss the idea that the nation could be “war weary.” He correctly notes that a relatively small segment of the population has either served in recent wars or has close relatives who served. However his discussion of the costs is misleading.
He tells readers:
“From 2001 to 2012, federal spending totaled $33.3 trillion; the wars were 4 percent of that. Over the same period, the American economy produced $163 trillion of goods and services. War spending equaled nine-tenths of 1 percent of that.
“As important, no special tax was ever imposed to pay war costs. They were simply added to budget deficits, so that few, if any, Americans suffered a loss of income. It’s doubtful that much other government spending was crowded out by the wars.”
It is difficult to get a precise estimate of the cost of the wars over this period, but one simple approach would be to look at the path of defense spending. This had been 3.0 percent of GDP in 2000 and was trending downward. After 2001 it averaged more than 4.5 percent of GDP. This difference over 12 years comes to 18 percentage points of GDP or roughly $2.9 trillion in today’s economy. This calculation ignores the timing of the expenditures, but it should be sufficient for a ballpark number. It also excludes increased spending on veterans benefits that resulted from the wars.
As a practical matter, since the economy was well below full employment for most of this period, the wars would not have imposed much of an economic burden. They would have had roughly the same economic effect as paying people to dig holes and fill them up again.
However, we live in a country with deficit and debt fixations that are pushed by people like Robert Samuelson and his newspaper. These people have been yelling frantically about the need to contain spending and get deficits down. For a long time they warned about a boogeyman who would destroy the economy if the debt to GDP ratio exceeded 90 percent.
In this context the debt that we ran up as a result of the wars has been a very large burden. This debt has been a big weapon used by those who don’t want the government to take steps to stimulate the economy and put people back to work.
In short, if we were having a serious discussion about economic potentials, then Samuelson would be right that the wars have not posed much of a burden. However in the political world where we actually live, the wars have been a big factor impeding our ability to boost the economy and create jobs.
Robert Samuelson used his column today to dismiss the idea that the nation could be “war weary.” He correctly notes that a relatively small segment of the population has either served in recent wars or has close relatives who served. However his discussion of the costs is misleading.
He tells readers:
“From 2001 to 2012, federal spending totaled $33.3 trillion; the wars were 4 percent of that. Over the same period, the American economy produced $163 trillion of goods and services. War spending equaled nine-tenths of 1 percent of that.
“As important, no special tax was ever imposed to pay war costs. They were simply added to budget deficits, so that few, if any, Americans suffered a loss of income. It’s doubtful that much other government spending was crowded out by the wars.”
It is difficult to get a precise estimate of the cost of the wars over this period, but one simple approach would be to look at the path of defense spending. This had been 3.0 percent of GDP in 2000 and was trending downward. After 2001 it averaged more than 4.5 percent of GDP. This difference over 12 years comes to 18 percentage points of GDP or roughly $2.9 trillion in today’s economy. This calculation ignores the timing of the expenditures, but it should be sufficient for a ballpark number. It also excludes increased spending on veterans benefits that resulted from the wars.
As a practical matter, since the economy was well below full employment for most of this period, the wars would not have imposed much of an economic burden. They would have had roughly the same economic effect as paying people to dig holes and fill them up again.
However, we live in a country with deficit and debt fixations that are pushed by people like Robert Samuelson and his newspaper. These people have been yelling frantically about the need to contain spending and get deficits down. For a long time they warned about a boogeyman who would destroy the economy if the debt to GDP ratio exceeded 90 percent.
In this context the debt that we ran up as a result of the wars has been a very large burden. This debt has been a big weapon used by those who don’t want the government to take steps to stimulate the economy and put people back to work.
In short, if we were having a serious discussion about economic potentials, then Samuelson would be right that the wars have not posed much of a burden. However in the political world where we actually live, the wars have been a big factor impeding our ability to boost the economy and create jobs.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The countries of southern Europe (Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece) have enormous trade imbalances with the countries of northern Europe, most importantly Germany. This is the core problem facing the euro zone economies. In order to limit the size of these imbalances, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the European Commission (EC) are demanding that the southern countries sharply reduce their budget deficits. This has thrown these countries into severe recessions with double-digit unemployment. (Yes, the immediate issue is the budget deficit, but this is an outgrowth of the trade deficit.)
Using complex economics, it is possible to determine that in order to reduce the southern country trade deficits, it will be necessary for northern countries to see more rapid inflation, thereby raising the price of their output relative to the price of output in southern Europe. However the New York Times see this prospect as a serious problem. A story discussing Germany’s relative prosperity told readers:
“But a closer look at the [growth] numbers shows a big gulf between growing, northern-tier countries like Germany, Austria or Finland and southern countries like Spain, Italy and Greece, which continue to contract, albeit at a more moderate pace than before. The divide makes for tricky navigation by the European Central Bank, which will hold its monthly monetary policy meeting on Thursday, as it tries to promote growth in the ailing countries while heading off inflation in the healthier ones.”
Of course if the purpose is to address the imbalances in the euro zone then the ECB should be promoting more inflation in northern Europe rather than trying to head it off.
This piece also uses the pejorative term “handout” to describe assistance from Germany and other northern European countries to the crisis countries. This money is allowing the southern countries to maintain payments to German banks and also to maintain their ability to purchase German exports. If Germany and other northern European countries provided less support for the southern countries it is more likely that they would opt to leave the euro zone and default on many of their debts. This would both cost Germany much wealth and lead to a sharp reduction in its exports.
It is also worth noting that Germany’s growth has not been quite as impressive as this article implies. Since the beginning of the downturn in 2007 its growth has been virtually identical to growth in the United States. While it does have lower labor force growth, and therefore lower potential growth, the main difference in outcomes has been due to the fact that Germany encourages employers to keep workers on the payroll in a downturn, even at shorter hours, rather than laying them off. In other words, labor market policy rather than growth explains Germany’s relative prosperity.
The countries of southern Europe (Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece) have enormous trade imbalances with the countries of northern Europe, most importantly Germany. This is the core problem facing the euro zone economies. In order to limit the size of these imbalances, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the European Commission (EC) are demanding that the southern countries sharply reduce their budget deficits. This has thrown these countries into severe recessions with double-digit unemployment. (Yes, the immediate issue is the budget deficit, but this is an outgrowth of the trade deficit.)
Using complex economics, it is possible to determine that in order to reduce the southern country trade deficits, it will be necessary for northern countries to see more rapid inflation, thereby raising the price of their output relative to the price of output in southern Europe. However the New York Times see this prospect as a serious problem. A story discussing Germany’s relative prosperity told readers:
“But a closer look at the [growth] numbers shows a big gulf between growing, northern-tier countries like Germany, Austria or Finland and southern countries like Spain, Italy and Greece, which continue to contract, albeit at a more moderate pace than before. The divide makes for tricky navigation by the European Central Bank, which will hold its monthly monetary policy meeting on Thursday, as it tries to promote growth in the ailing countries while heading off inflation in the healthier ones.”
Of course if the purpose is to address the imbalances in the euro zone then the ECB should be promoting more inflation in northern Europe rather than trying to head it off.
This piece also uses the pejorative term “handout” to describe assistance from Germany and other northern European countries to the crisis countries. This money is allowing the southern countries to maintain payments to German banks and also to maintain their ability to purchase German exports. If Germany and other northern European countries provided less support for the southern countries it is more likely that they would opt to leave the euro zone and default on many of their debts. This would both cost Germany much wealth and lead to a sharp reduction in its exports.
It is also worth noting that Germany’s growth has not been quite as impressive as this article implies. Since the beginning of the downturn in 2007 its growth has been virtually identical to growth in the United States. While it does have lower labor force growth, and therefore lower potential growth, the main difference in outcomes has been due to the fact that Germany encourages employers to keep workers on the payroll in a downturn, even at shorter hours, rather than laying them off. In other words, labor market policy rather than growth explains Germany’s relative prosperity.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Eduardo Porter’s column notes evidence that individual donors are becoming increasingly important to political campaigns while business donors appear to be less important. The column interprets this to imply a lessening of their political influence, especially over the Republican Party.
There is an alternative explanation. After-tax corporate profits are at their highest level in the post-war period. This suggests that business has collectively been enormously successful in pushing its agenda. In this context, businesses may see little reason to spend vast sums on elections just as opponents of prohibition have not spent much money pushing their cause since the end of prohibition 80 years ago.
Candidates who pose major challenges to important business interests are rarely able to even contest a senate seat. The likelihood that they would be able to control a house of Congress or the presidency in the foreseeable future is near zero.
Eduardo Porter’s column notes evidence that individual donors are becoming increasingly important to political campaigns while business donors appear to be less important. The column interprets this to imply a lessening of their political influence, especially over the Republican Party.
There is an alternative explanation. After-tax corporate profits are at their highest level in the post-war period. This suggests that business has collectively been enormously successful in pushing its agenda. In this context, businesses may see little reason to spend vast sums on elections just as opponents of prohibition have not spent much money pushing their cause since the end of prohibition 80 years ago.
Candidates who pose major challenges to important business interests are rarely able to even contest a senate seat. The likelihood that they would be able to control a house of Congress or the presidency in the foreseeable future is near zero.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
If one were to list the people most responsible for the country’s dismal economic state few people other than Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin would rank higher than Larry Summers. After all, Summers was a huge proponent of financial deregulation in the 1990s and the last decade. He was a cheerleader for the stock bubble and never expressed any concerns about the housing bubble. He thought the over-valued dollar was good policy (and therefore also the enormous trade deficit that inevitably follows), and he was unconcerned that an inadequate stimulus would lead to a dismal employment picture long into the future.
However President Obama apparently wants to appoint Summers as Fed chair, so the Post is rising to the occasion and busily re-writing history. Today’s effort has Summers as a far-sighted oracle whose concerns were unfortunately dismissed by those in positions of power.
The Post tells us:
“As a young economist, Summers helped shape the idea that it can take many years for jobs to return after a financial crisis. In the White House, that left him deeply skeptical about the swift rebound many of his colleagues were expecting.”
Actually the piece cited does not really talk about financial crises at all. It mostly focuses on how the shocks from jumps in energy and food prices led to high unemployment in Europe in the 1980s. If this work left Summers skeptical about the prospects for a swift rebound he was able to conceal this skepticism from the public. He apparently was also unable to convince President Obama to embrace such skepticism since the president was talking about the “green shoots of recovery” just after the stimulus was approved and the need to pivot to deficit reduction.
Later we are told:
“Summers was also a major advocate of new requirements that banks hold more emergency funds in reserve — a position he had been pushing years before the crisis. Such higher capital requirements can restrain excessive speculation and bubbles — which Obama has said must be an important goal of the next Fed chairman.”
The linked column is from February of 2008, well after the financial crisis was underway, not “years before the crisis.” Again, if Summers had been overly concerned about undercapitalized financial institutions he managed to largely keep these concerns to himself.
We then get the following insight from “people familiar with Summers’ thinking:”
“maintaining adequate capital would be a key element of his approach to bank oversight as Fed chairman.”
This followed by the assessment from “associates” that:
“he’d encourage banks and other financial companies to serve lower- and middle-income workers by more tightly regulating fees and by ensuring that banks are lending to needy communities and deserving borrowers.”
On this last topic it probably would have been rude to point out that when he was Treasury Secretary the Treasury Department put out a report on subprime lending that community groups and progressive members of Congress tried to squelch because they thought it would undermine more serious efforts at regulation. Hey, if Summers’ “associates” are saying off the record that he would be a vigorous regulator concerned about protecting consumers, why waste time going over his actual record?
So there you have it. This piece should put to rest all those concerns people have raised about Summers’ appointment as Fed chair.
If one were to list the people most responsible for the country’s dismal economic state few people other than Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin would rank higher than Larry Summers. After all, Summers was a huge proponent of financial deregulation in the 1990s and the last decade. He was a cheerleader for the stock bubble and never expressed any concerns about the housing bubble. He thought the over-valued dollar was good policy (and therefore also the enormous trade deficit that inevitably follows), and he was unconcerned that an inadequate stimulus would lead to a dismal employment picture long into the future.
However President Obama apparently wants to appoint Summers as Fed chair, so the Post is rising to the occasion and busily re-writing history. Today’s effort has Summers as a far-sighted oracle whose concerns were unfortunately dismissed by those in positions of power.
The Post tells us:
“As a young economist, Summers helped shape the idea that it can take many years for jobs to return after a financial crisis. In the White House, that left him deeply skeptical about the swift rebound many of his colleagues were expecting.”
Actually the piece cited does not really talk about financial crises at all. It mostly focuses on how the shocks from jumps in energy and food prices led to high unemployment in Europe in the 1980s. If this work left Summers skeptical about the prospects for a swift rebound he was able to conceal this skepticism from the public. He apparently was also unable to convince President Obama to embrace such skepticism since the president was talking about the “green shoots of recovery” just after the stimulus was approved and the need to pivot to deficit reduction.
Later we are told:
“Summers was also a major advocate of new requirements that banks hold more emergency funds in reserve — a position he had been pushing years before the crisis. Such higher capital requirements can restrain excessive speculation and bubbles — which Obama has said must be an important goal of the next Fed chairman.”
The linked column is from February of 2008, well after the financial crisis was underway, not “years before the crisis.” Again, if Summers had been overly concerned about undercapitalized financial institutions he managed to largely keep these concerns to himself.
We then get the following insight from “people familiar with Summers’ thinking:”
“maintaining adequate capital would be a key element of his approach to bank oversight as Fed chairman.”
This followed by the assessment from “associates” that:
“he’d encourage banks and other financial companies to serve lower- and middle-income workers by more tightly regulating fees and by ensuring that banks are lending to needy communities and deserving borrowers.”
On this last topic it probably would have been rude to point out that when he was Treasury Secretary the Treasury Department put out a report on subprime lending that community groups and progressive members of Congress tried to squelch because they thought it would undermine more serious efforts at regulation. Hey, if Summers’ “associates” are saying off the record that he would be a vigorous regulator concerned about protecting consumers, why waste time going over his actual record?
So there you have it. This piece should put to rest all those concerns people have raised about Summers’ appointment as Fed chair.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Even before he has been officially designated as President Obama’s pick to be Fed chair, Summers is already slowing the economy and costing jobs according to the New York Times. This remarkable possibility is due to the fact that investors do not see Summers being as committed to maintaining an easy money policy as the current Chair Ben Bernanke or his main rival Janet Yellen. The result is that interest rates are higher now in expectation of future rises. This is of course speculative, but it is nonetheless an interesting hypothesis.
It is also worth noting that all the reports that President Obama has decided to pick Summers are based on anonymous sources. This is likely part of a campaign to push Summers’ candidacy, since opponents will be less motivated to act against Summers if they believe the decision has already been made. As long as no one has gone on record identifying Summers as the pick there is zero cost to Obama making a different selection. Only the reporters would look foolish.
Even before he has been officially designated as President Obama’s pick to be Fed chair, Summers is already slowing the economy and costing jobs according to the New York Times. This remarkable possibility is due to the fact that investors do not see Summers being as committed to maintaining an easy money policy as the current Chair Ben Bernanke or his main rival Janet Yellen. The result is that interest rates are higher now in expectation of future rises. This is of course speculative, but it is nonetheless an interesting hypothesis.
It is also worth noting that all the reports that President Obama has decided to pick Summers are based on anonymous sources. This is likely part of a campaign to push Summers’ candidacy, since opponents will be less motivated to act against Summers if they believe the decision has already been made. As long as no one has gone on record identifying Summers as the pick there is zero cost to Obama making a different selection. Only the reporters would look foolish.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
According to the New York Times, the OECD sees both Japan and the United States as growing at “encouraging” rates this year. The article reports the OECD expects the U.S. economy to grow at a 2.5 percent rate in the third quarter and 2.7 percent in the fourth quarter. This would bring the growth rate for the full year to 2.2 percent. That is roughly equal to the economy’s potential growth rate, which is usually put between 2.2-2.4 percent. That would mean the country is making up no progress in reducing an output gap that the Congressional Budget Office puts at 6.0 percent of GDP.
By contrast, Japan is projected to grow by 2.9 percent this year. This is considerably faster than Japan’s potential growth rate since it has a shrinking population and labor force. Japan’s 3.8 percent unemployment rate is already below the 4.3 percent figure that the OECD puts at Japan’s structural rate of unemployment.
According to the New York Times, the OECD sees both Japan and the United States as growing at “encouraging” rates this year. The article reports the OECD expects the U.S. economy to grow at a 2.5 percent rate in the third quarter and 2.7 percent in the fourth quarter. This would bring the growth rate for the full year to 2.2 percent. That is roughly equal to the economy’s potential growth rate, which is usually put between 2.2-2.4 percent. That would mean the country is making up no progress in reducing an output gap that the Congressional Budget Office puts at 6.0 percent of GDP.
By contrast, Japan is projected to grow by 2.9 percent this year. This is considerably faster than Japan’s potential growth rate since it has a shrinking population and labor force. Japan’s 3.8 percent unemployment rate is already below the 4.3 percent figure that the OECD puts at Japan’s structural rate of unemployment.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT had an excellent piece describing the system of factory inspections that Walmart and other major retailers use to ensure both the quality of products produced overseas and safety and fairness of working condition. The piece explained how the inspection system can be gamed so that factories can continue violating company rules without being detected.
The NYT had an excellent piece describing the system of factory inspections that Walmart and other major retailers use to ensure both the quality of products produced overseas and safety and fairness of working condition. The piece explained how the inspection system can be gamed so that factories can continue violating company rules without being detected.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Ezra Klein gives us some terrifying news in a Bloomberg column today. President Obama’s economic team think they are doing a great job, hence the desire to bring back former teammate Larry Summers as Fed chair. This is terrifying because the economy this Labor Day is described by a set of statistics that can only be described as horrible.
We are almost 9 million jobs below the trend level of employment. The number of people involuntarily working part-time is still up by almost 4 million from its pre-recession level. Wages have been stagnant for a decade and show no signs of increasing any time soon. And, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the economy is still operating more than $1 trillion (6 percent) below its potential. Oh, and by the way, the financial sector is more concentrated than ever, with top honchos drawing the same sort of paychecks they did before the crisis.
I could go on but what’s the point? This is an economy that under other circumstances we would all say is awful. The Obama team can pat themselves on the back for saying its better than a second Great Depression, but that’s a bit like saying that the 1962 Mets didn’t lose all their games. Horrible is horrible.
The best that can be said is that the crew has been ineffectual in the face of Republican opposition in building any sort of political support for a stronger economic agenda. But ineffectual is not a much better recommendation than incompetent.
And it’s hard to blame items like the “pivot to deficit reduction” on the Republicans. If the Obama team has an aggressive plan for turning the economy around that is being stifled by the nasty Republicans they have not done a very good job of even making it known, must less rallying support.
I suppose if they think everything in the economy is just great that would explain why they want Larry Summers back. That’s pretty bad news on Labor Day.
There is one item in Ezra’s piece that deserves special attention. He tells us that:
“Larry Summers isn’t just the favorite for Federal Reserve chairman. He’s the overwhelming favorite.”
The inside tip to Ezra is not breaking news, it is part of the Obama administration’s effort to diffuse opposition to Summers. Hey, what’s the point in opposing somthing that has already happened?
Summers will be Obama’s pick when Obama announces that he is his pick. Until then everything we read in the paper is political maneuvering. As the old saying goes, it’s not over until the fat man is officially named.
Ezra Klein gives us some terrifying news in a Bloomberg column today. President Obama’s economic team think they are doing a great job, hence the desire to bring back former teammate Larry Summers as Fed chair. This is terrifying because the economy this Labor Day is described by a set of statistics that can only be described as horrible.
We are almost 9 million jobs below the trend level of employment. The number of people involuntarily working part-time is still up by almost 4 million from its pre-recession level. Wages have been stagnant for a decade and show no signs of increasing any time soon. And, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the economy is still operating more than $1 trillion (6 percent) below its potential. Oh, and by the way, the financial sector is more concentrated than ever, with top honchos drawing the same sort of paychecks they did before the crisis.
I could go on but what’s the point? This is an economy that under other circumstances we would all say is awful. The Obama team can pat themselves on the back for saying its better than a second Great Depression, but that’s a bit like saying that the 1962 Mets didn’t lose all their games. Horrible is horrible.
The best that can be said is that the crew has been ineffectual in the face of Republican opposition in building any sort of political support for a stronger economic agenda. But ineffectual is not a much better recommendation than incompetent.
And it’s hard to blame items like the “pivot to deficit reduction” on the Republicans. If the Obama team has an aggressive plan for turning the economy around that is being stifled by the nasty Republicans they have not done a very good job of even making it known, must less rallying support.
I suppose if they think everything in the economy is just great that would explain why they want Larry Summers back. That’s pretty bad news on Labor Day.
There is one item in Ezra’s piece that deserves special attention. He tells us that:
“Larry Summers isn’t just the favorite for Federal Reserve chairman. He’s the overwhelming favorite.”
The inside tip to Ezra is not breaking news, it is part of the Obama administration’s effort to diffuse opposition to Summers. Hey, what’s the point in opposing somthing that has already happened?
Summers will be Obama’s pick when Obama announces that he is his pick. Until then everything we read in the paper is political maneuvering. As the old saying goes, it’s not over until the fat man is officially named.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
