Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Paul Krugman: Twilight Zone Economics

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Dudley_DUright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-03 11:40 PM
Original message
Paul Krugman: Twilight Zone Economics
For about 20 months the U.S. economy has been operating in a twilight zone: growing too fast to meet the classic definition of a recession, but too slowly to meet the usual criteria for economic recovery. There's nothing particularly mysterious about our situation. But recent news coverage and commentary — in particular, the enthusiastic headlines that followed a modest increase in growth and a modest decline in jobless claims — suggest that some people still don't get it. So here's a brief refresher course on twilight zone Economics 101.

Since November 2001 — which the National Bureau of Economic Research, in a controversial decision, has declared the end of the recession — the U.S. economy has grown at an annual rate of about 2.6 percent. That may not sound so bad, but when it comes to jobs there has been no recovery at all. Nonfarm payrolls have fallen by, on average, 50,000 per month since the "recovery" began, accounting for 1 million of the 2.7 million jobs lost since March 2001.

Meanwhile, employment is chasing a moving target because the working-age population continues to grow. Just to keep up with population growth, the U.S. needs to add about 110,000 jobs per month. When it falls short of that, jobs become steadily harder to find. At this point conditions in the labor market are probably the worst they have been for almost 20 years. (The measured unemployment rate isn't all that high, but that's largely because many people have given up looking for work.)

All this leads to a great deal of suffering — not just lost income, but also the anxiety and humiliation that come with long-term unemployment. Is relief in sight?

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/15/opinion/15KRUG.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-03 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
1. more reason from Krugman
Nice close:

...All this is, of course, an indictment of our economic policy — a policy that has managed the remarkable trick of generating immense budget deficits without giving the economy much stimulus. But that's a subject for another day.

Good articles deserve a bump!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-16-03 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
2. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shirlden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-16-03 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
3. Any one know of any other economist
who has the guts to tell it like it is ??

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dudley_DUright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-16-03 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Actually yes
George Akerlof, professor of economics at UC-Berkeley and 2001 Nobel Prize winner recently said of George Bush: “I think this is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history. It has engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible policies not only in foreign policy and economics but also in social and environmental policy.” Now that is telling it like it is.

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/abs_news_body.asp?section=Opinion&oid=30489
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yavin4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-16-03 07:20 PM
Response to Original message
5. Something That Krugman Missed
Most of the 2.4% "growth" was because of massive government expenditures into the economy because of the war. In fact, the GDP figure is grossly misleading because the government alone can spend enough to make it look like the economy is indeed growing. Also, you have to take into account that the Fed lowered interest rates in the second quarter to 1%.

IOW, we're counting deficit spending by the government and cheap debt from the Fed as a sign of economic growth. Counting debt as equity is exactly what Enron did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-17-03 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Did you email that to him?
Because it's a good, albeit terrifying, point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 10th 2024, 04:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC