The Conversation - A New York Times Blog
October 15, 2009, 12:45 pm
The Economy Is Still in a Funk
By David Brooks AND Bob Herbert
David Brooks: Speaking of bad, maybe we can talk about the economy and what to do about the economic malaise. The Obama administration projected that if the stimulus package passed, then unemployment would be down to about 7 percent by now and dropping. Instead it’s pushing 10 percent and rising.
...
Bob Herbert: I never understood back in January and February how the administration and a bunch of economists could have been so sanguine about the employment prospects for the rest of the year when only last fall we were worrying about the possibility of a second Great Depression. A jobless rate of just 7 percent right now would have represented an astonishing economic turnaround, entirely unrealistic. I suppose President Obama and other politicians were reluctant to paint too gloomy a picture at the beginning of the year (and the start of a new administration), but I can’t imagine what was going through the minds of mainstream economists who have missed the boat with regard to this economy time and again.
...
As bad as the official jobless statistics are, the reality in most places is worse, and sometimes much worse. And some of the cutbacks are undoubtedly undermining the social and economic health of the nation. According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, 40,000 teachers have lost their jobs over the past year. That’s a horrifying statistic. No good can come of it. Great universities like Berkeley are letting people go and cutting salaries. What does that say for the future?
...
Comments
---
October 15, 2009 1:27 pm
This discussion is surprisingly short of ideas and short of blame. Fear of a government deficit is completely unfounded when we are in a depression and we ARE in a DEPRESSION. Huge bank profits do not show a health economy if you mean by economy anything other than corporate financial firm profits. The real state of the nation is dismal. Years of outsourcing, criminal financial gambling and anti-labor (read this as anti-worker) policies have turned us into a rich/poor nation. If any of these elected representatives care at all about real people and not just their rich campaign contributors there would be a program of MASSIVE deficit spending to put money into pockets that will actually be spent on real goods. As is is we have seen money flooding into banks who hoard it and continue to gamble. We are setting up all the conditions for revolution. Don’t thing it can’t happen. Unemployed, cheated and starved people tend to find ways to get what they need. Too bad our totally corrupt leaders are so stupid as to not see this.
David & Bob,
Look, I read you both enough to know that you both understand…JOBS!
The Great Depression was buried with JOBS! We did not need to save one investment bank, insurance company or brokerage house. What was, and is needed, is more direct job creation. A new CCC program that includes teachers, free tuition and unemployment benefits. If Democrat majorities in Congress can’t accomplish this, perhaps a radical new political alignment is over due.
JF Rote
— jf rote
Originally posted by telerion That's what happens when second-rate (or maybe third) economists turn in their badges and become political hacks (in this particular case a conservative hack). I don't think you realize that the brightest stars on the economics phd market typically go to universities not to wall street or other private sector positions.
It's even worse when some guy from a bank (like Kantor) makes such claims in the media.
Most of the times, they're just trying to get people to buy or sell according to their own positions. Some degree of paranoia can be healthy. If you listen to a guy making forecasts on the performance of something he has high stakes on, then you should immediately be sceptical.
Originally posted by zeeblebot suppose you provide a full list of reputable economists. then we can determine if any of them violate your theory.
There should be some kind of a rating system for economists (at least those who make frequent predictions). It could be like they do with movies - give them somewhere between 0 to 5 stars - and a thorough record of their performance and the analysis behind their forecasts would be made readily available.
Economists with lousy ratings would soon find themselves out of job because no one would listen to them or take them seriously. Any politician or party making an argument using quotes from 1-star economists could be safely ignored. But the 5-star guys would be able to command monster salaries, and their quotes would warrant immediate respect. And almost all economists would then avoid making splashy forecasts just to get attention or partisan advantage - because they wouldn't want to jeopardize their ratings.
Originally posted by Melanerpes There should be some kind of a rating system for economists (at least those who make frequent predictions). It could be like they do with movies - give them somewhere between 0 to 5 stars - and a thorough record of their performance and the analysis behind their forecasts would be made readily available.
Economists with lousy ratings would soon find t ...[text shortened]... o get attention or partisan advantage - because they wouldn't want to jeopardize their ratings.
This has led to an entirely theological debate. Democrats say that unemployment would be even worse without the package. Republicans say that the package hasn’t made a dent on job losses and that is proof it doesn’t work. There is absolutely no way to know who is right.
Some of the claims about success of the stimulus are risible. My friends in the administration claim that the stimulus boosted gross domestic product growth by 3 percent. But their study simply assumes the federal dollars had a high multiplier, which then produces the desired result. If you assume that the program is a success, then your can produce the conclusion that it’s a success.
As bad as the official jobless statistics are, the reality in most places is worse, and sometimes much worse. And some of the cutbacks are undoubtedly undermining the social and economic health of the nation. According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, 40,000 teachers have lost their jobs over the past year. That’s a horrifying statistic. No good can come of it. Great universities like Berkeley are letting people go and cutting salaries. What does that say for the future?
LOTS of good can come of it. It's usually very difficult to get rid of mediocre or burnt-out teachers (tenure system, union pressures etc). But the bad economy gives many schools the cover they need to finally get rid of the under-performers. This frees up space to hire new teachers that will inject new ideas and energy into an education system that need to adapt to the realities of the 21st century.
The same dynamic probably applies to a lot of other sectors. Downturns provide the cover needed for businesses to make the difficult decisions that will make them more efficient over the long term.
Originally posted by Melanerpes There should be some kind of a rating system for economists (at least those who make frequent predictions). It could be like they do with movies - give them somewhere between 0 to 5 stars - and a thorough record of their performance and the analysis behind their forecasts would be made readily available.
Economists with lousy ratings would soon find t ...[text shortened]... o get attention or partisan advantage - because they wouldn't want to jeopardize their ratings.
the economists declared a recession HOW many months after the recession started?
Originally posted by Melanerpes As bad as the official jobless statistics are, the reality in most places is worse, and sometimes much worse. And some of the cutbacks are undoubtedly undermining the social and economic health of the nation. According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, 40,000 teachers have lost their jobs over the past year. That’s a horrifying statistic. sinesses to make the difficult decisions that will make them more efficient over the long term.
i doubt the schools gave a crap about the performance of the teachers they laid off, whether they used it as a determining metric or not. each head counted is money to the school system.
Originally posted by zeeblebot the economists declared a recession HOW many months after the recession started?
A recession cannot be officially declared until there have been two consecutive quarters of declining growth. And it takes about a quarter for all the numbers to come in regarding the previous quarter. So at best, it's going to take almost a year into a recession before anyone can make an official declaration.
And - economists are aware of psychology. The mere declaration of "recession" by even a relatively small number of economists would by itself probably CAUSE a recession to occur because businesses and consumers would freak out in response. So most economists will wait all the numbers come in and the recesssion becomes "official".
Originally posted by zeeblebot i doubt the schools gave a crap about the performance of the teachers they laid off, whether they used it as a determining metric or not. each head counted is money to the school system.
If the schools lay off high-peforming teachers, you can be sure that the parents would give a crap. And the school board would get an earful from a lot of angry parents during the next elections.
If the parents themselves don't give a crap -- well it's their tax dollars or tuition payments.
Originally posted by Melanerpes A recession cannot be officially declared until there have been two consecutive quarters of declining growth. And it takes about a quarter for all the numbers to come in regarding the previous quarter. So at best, it's going to take almost a year into a recession before anyone can make an official declaration.
And - economists are aware of psychology. So most economists will wait all the numbers come in and the recesssion becomes "official".
so how about the party-out-of-power and their media syncophants declaring over and over how bad the economy is? .... in an economy that's 70 pct consumer-driven ...
like shouting fire in a theater ....
the Clinton Miracle was tanking before bush was elected. the peak was spring 2000 and the election was nov 2000. but what we got out of that was months and years of the media blaming bush for that recession.
now, here is a similar scenario, eight years later. except that obama and hillary are escaping the heat for denigrating the economy in the runup to the election.
the economy sure got worse after two years of campaigning against it.
Originally posted by Melanerpes If the schools lay off high-peforming teachers, you can be sure that the parents would give a crap. And the school board would get an earful from a lot of angry parents during the next elections.
If the parents themselves don't give a crap -- well it's their tax dollars or tuition payments.
parents have their own jobs and worries. school boards only have to worry around election time. and they don't make firing decisions.
obama vs. the economy
22 Oct '09 11:36
Back to Top