That’s what Paul Krugman says is on the horizon. In a sobering article in Sunday’s NY Times Mr. Krugman says policy errors are leading us right off the cliff:
“We are now, I fear, in the early stages of a third depression. It will probably look more like the Long Depression than the much more severe Great Depression. But the cost "” to the world economy and, above all, to the millions of lives blighted by the absence of jobs "” will nonetheless be immense.
And this third depression will be primarily a failure of policy. Around the world "” most recently at last weekend's deeply discouraging G-20 meeting "” governments are obsessing about inflation when the real threat is deflation, preaching the need for belt-tightening when the real problem is inadequate spending.”
Regular readers know my position. I never thought the secular bear ended or that the credit crisis was over. This has become abundantly clear as unemployment has remained stubbornly high and the credit crisis evolves into a full blown sovereign debt crisis. The recent evolution of the Greek crisis and scare mongering of certain market participants is almost certainly walking us off the edge of the cliff. Policymakers have misdiagnosed this crisis from the very beginning so it’s not surprising to see them continue down this same path.
It’s unfortunate that this is all unraveling with Greece at the epicenter. Policymakers have utterly failed in understanding that the Euro currency system is fundamentally different from the others around the globe – specifically in Japan, UK and USA. We’ve all become convinced that we are the next Greece (which is utterly insane). The Euro crisis is staggering and beyond frightening in my opinion. As I have maintained for years there is no true fix in Europe that doesn’t include full unity (a United States of Europe – which is impossible) or partial or full restructuring (full restructuring is inevitable in the long-run in my opinion). There is no bailout that can fix the inherent flaws in the single currency system. It is destined to fail in my opinion. That’s a terribly frightening thought and the Euro’s death might very well be on our doorstep. A swift death would be preferable in my opinion. Unfortunately, I see this crisis playing out for a very long time as politicians hang on to their Euro baby for as long as possible. The first step in rehab is always admission. We’re not even there yet.
Sometimes this feels like a terrible dream to me. It’s as if we are reliving the gold standard days all over again when countries realized the inherent restraints imposed on their nations via this foolish currency system. Many are arguing that austerity is the only way out of the Euro crisis, but austerity is already proving futile in countries that have undergone austerity measures. Exhibit A is Ireland where their budget deficit continues to expand. The same will occur in Portugal, Italy, Spain and Greece where austerity measures are in the works. Unfortunately for the Europeans this is a currency problem and not just a budget problem. Europe appears doomed in my opinion unless a true currency fix is implemented. That alone could bring us all to our knees. Unfortunately, the problems don’t stop at the borders of Europe.
Here in the USA the economic woes continue long after the supposed end of the recession. I have long argued that we are Japan, yet we have implemented almost all of their failed policies. In 2008 I wrote a letter to the Fed asking that they very seriously consider what I referred to as the “Swedish Model” (I figured that even a married man like Ben couldn’t resist a Swedish model – I was wrong). In the late 80’s and 90’s the Swedes were suffering from a banking crisis that arose from a private sector debt bubble. It was strikingly similar to the problems in Japan, however, their responses were drastically different. The Riksbank detailed their options at the time:
“The Swedish Bank Support Authority had to choose between two alternative strategies. The first method involves deferring the reporting of losses for as long as is legally possible and using the bank?s current income for a gradual writedown of the loss making assets. One advantage of this method is that it helps to avoid the bank being forced to massive sales of assets at prices below long run market values. A serious disadvantage is that the method presupposes that the bank problems can be resolved relatively quickly; otherwise the difficulties compound, leading to much greater problems when they ultimately materialise. The handling of problems among savings and loan institution in the United States in the 1980s is a case in point.
With the other method, an open account of all expected losses and write-downs is presented at an early stage. This clarifies the extent of the problems and the support that is required. Provided the authorities and the banks make it credible that no additional problems have been concealed, this procedure also promotes confidence. It entails a risk of creating an exaggerated perception of the magnitude of the problems, for instance if real estate that has been taken over at unduly cautiously estimated values in a market that is temporarily depressed. This can lead, for instance, to borrowers in temporary difficulties being forced to accept harsher terms, which in turn can result in payments being suspended. The Swedish authorities opted for the second option.”
Option A: Take your pain. Avoid the inevitable. Make the losers lose. Avoid moral hazard. Be transparent with the public’s money. Option B: bailout the losers. Let them live to fight another day. Hope they survive. Let moral hazard run wild. Use the public’s money foolishly and secretively. We obviously chose the same plan B that Japan chose – don’t make the losers lose. Now we are wrangling with a giant sized case of moral hazard and a banking sector that is still sitting on a potential time bomb.
The worst part is that public faith is slowly being shattered. This is, in my opinion, the death grip in deflation – which is very much a psychological battle. Allowing the losers to win was essentially admitting that the system is rigged. That’s no way to instill trust & confidence (which, at the end of the day, are the foundations of any economy).
I have long advocated an approach that was focused on Main Street and not Wall Street. After all, the crux of the issue has always been Main Street. And after years of bailing out Wall Street (only to discover that it achieved nothing – thank you Ben and the other Monetarists!) we are going to implement policy that further kicks Main Street when its down (thank you Austrians!). Last week’s watered down financial regulatory bill was just one more sign of how corrupt and inept our politicians are. It’s as if we keep bailing these losers out no matter what. This sort of backwards policy that ignores history is destined to fail. We continue to ignore Main Street at the benefit of Wall Street. History has shown this to be a very poor approach to a credit crisis.
We have truly wasted a crisis. Effective reform has been debauched. The banks remain as powerful as ever. Main Street remains weak. Monetary and fiscal policy has been primarily focused on helping the losers win (homebuyers tax credits to boost home prices, TARP & QE to bailout the banks, cash for clunkers to give more debt to the financially incompetent, etc). We could have crushed the banks and given the power back to consumers. We could have bailed out Main Street and not Wall Street. We could have forced the losers to lose and ensure trust and confidence in a capitalist system that has served this country pretty damn well since its inception. We have failed on all fronts.
I hate to sound so negative, but if policy continues to devolve with the flat earth economists at the helm we might very well end up being something worse than Japan – the United States (circa 1937). It’s looking more and more likely to me.
The content on this site is provided as general information only and should not be taken as investment advice. All site content shall not be construed as a recommendation to buy or sell any security or financial product, or to participate in any particular trading or investment strategy. The ideas expressed on this site are solely the opinions of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the opinions of firms affiliated with the author(s). The author(s) may or may not have a position in any security referenced herein. Any action that you take as a result of information or analysis on this site is ultimately your responsibility. Consult your investment adviser before making any investment decisions.
Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.
Good!
This is exactly what we need. Maybe when the final nail is placed in the coffin of greed and avarice in the halls of corporate and government power we can finally reclaim what the Banksters and Politrixters have stolen from us and rebuild on a more solid foundation.
All hail the fools! Dance and drink heartily for tomorrow you fall.
Well, this is not entirely necessary, but we’re allowing it (even forcing it) upon ourselves. Personally, I hope we crush the banks if we go down again. There’s really only one way to cleanse the system and that is to force the losers to lose.
Unfortunately, we could have done this two years ago and now be well on our way to sustained recovery….We have wasted a lot of time and caused more pain than necessary.
TPC, I hope not. But the facts are all there to see…and those in power don’t know what they are. Scary stuff.
On another point – I am actually surprised how much Krugman gets slammed in the U.S. press. Any particular reason why?
“I am actually surprised how much Krugman gets slammed in the U.S. press.”
Krugman just changed his tune. He was always in favor of bailing out the banks and now he’s saying he had a different solution. He was a big cheerleader of Bernanke and now he’s throwing him under the bus. Now that it looks like the grand Keynesian plan is unraveling, he’s covering his you know what.
When exactly was Krugman for the Swedish model???? News to me. He’s been inconsistent, except for the bit about spend more money.
When was he ever concerned about moral hazard?
Krugman is an economic opportunist. His inconsistencies have been well documented. If there is an opportunity to make himself look smart by decrying what someone else is doing, he never fails to seize the opportunity. It doesn’t matter if it’s different from what he said a year or two ago. He was bitching about gov’t spending when Bush was in office, yet no one calls him on that.
He has no credibility.
He was bitching about gov't spending when Bush was in office, yet no one calls him on that.
You apparently don’t understand Keynesian economics, which Krugman practices.
Keynesians believe in adjusting,/i> spending based upon the economic cycle. Deficits are acceptable only during downturns, and then with the objective of increasing aggregate demand.
Bush was running up deficits while the economy was in a boom. That turned out to be bad policy — a Keynesian would have been building a surplus and preparing for the inevitable cyclical decline. Bush was practicing supply-side economics, and that policy failed.
I don’t always agree with Krugman, but most of the criticisms that you find of him on internet forums is based upon a failure to understand his position. The Bush comment illustrates that you don’t really grasp the nature of his arguments.
Mi>I am actually surprised how much Krugman gets slammed in the U.S. press. Any particular reason why?
He’s a liberal, which irritates hard-right conservatives. And he’s often accurate, which really drives them nuts.
I don’t happen to agree with him here, though. Someone in his position needs to be a bit melodramatic — he could actually influence policy, so he may as well try to create some fear among the politicos. So while that’s understandable, he’s overselling it, nonetheless.
I agree with him that austerity is not a particularly terrific way to go. But there is a difference between the US and most of the EU — the Europeans already have substantial fiscal spending, so it is more difficult for them to use stimulus to spur more demand, given that they have so much spending already.
The US is in a different, and better, position. We can use stimulus more effectively because we have more opportunities to use it. We also have a stronger balance sheet and future growth opportunities to support it.
I have been waiting for awhile to figure out that Euroland austerity measures were not going to help them to grow out of it as well as would the US, and that the euro would correct when the markets figured that out. Well, they’ve started figuring that via the Greek crisis, and the US has reaped the benefits through both the dollar and falling treasury rates.
Most of Europe is accustomed to lower growth rates and higher levels of structural unemployment, and they’ll find a path that works for them. The US strives to keep the economic engine going at a good pace, and we’ll continue to outperform the Europeans. Not much has changed really.
The US strives to keep the economic engine going at a good pace, and we'll continue to outperform the Europeans. Not much has changed really. Angry MBA
But what about the Chinese? Do you figure the boom-bust cycle will clip em behind the knees and we’ll emerge on top since we have more experience with pseudo free markets?
How about we practice genuine free markets instead? Logically, if a pseudo free markets trumps socialism trumps Communism then a genuine free market should trump them all.
He’s divisive because he is so extreme left. There’s an entire half of the country who won’t even listen to him and another quarter of the country who wonders if he’s too far left to be considered rational.
He's divisive because he is so extreme left. TPC
The left is unprincipled but more accurate while the right is more principled but less accurate.
There’s a great deal of truth in the saying: “the truth probably lies somewhere inbetween”. People like to think in absolutes because it gives them certainty. But life is not so black and white. Economics is certainly not so black and white.
Hey TPC
Thank you for your article about the “swedish model”. But is it really possible to compare them? Sweden was very much helped by the fact that the world economy was going up and thus gave a salutary push to the swedish economy at that time (wich is heavely export driven).
Bernanke and the FED had a systemic crisis to handle and had to act differently that the swedes in order to save the entire financial system. As I understand we were so close to a complete disaster in fall 2008. Bernanke had to take action with cold steel on his throat. Did he really have any options?
Thank you for a great website!
Read Full Article »