The Mistake Of 2010

mame

Well-Known Member
lol.jpg

^^^ lol...

We've been talking about the possibilities of a double dip... Krugman argues we've already made similar mistakes as in 1937:
Earlier this week, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York published a blog post about the “mistake of 1937,” the premature fiscal and monetary pullback that aborted an ongoing economic recovery and prolonged the Great Depression. As Gauti Eggertsson, the post’s author (with whom I have done research) points out, economic conditions today — with output growing, some prices rising, but unemployment still very high — bear a strong resemblance to those in 1936-37. So are modern policy makers going to make the same mistake? Earlier this week, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York published a blog post about the “mistake of 1937,” the premature fiscal and monetary pullback that aborted an ongoing economic recovery and prolonged the Great Depression. As Gauti Eggertsson, the post’s author (with whom I have done research) points out, economic conditions today — with output growing, some prices rising, but unemployment still very high — bear a strong resemblance to those in 1936-37. So are modern policy makers going to make the same mistake?

Mr. Eggertsson says no, that economists now know better. But I disagree. In fact, in important ways we have already repeated the mistake of 1937. Call it the mistake of 2010: a “pivot” away from jobs to other concerns, whose wrongheadedness has been highlighted by recent economic data.

To be sure, things could be worse — and there’s a strong chance that they will, indeed, get worse.

Back when the original 2009 Obama stimulus was enacted, some of us warned that it was both too small and too short-lived. In particular, the effects of the stimulus would start fading out in 2010 — and given the fact that financial crises are usually followed by prolonged slumps, it was unlikely that the economy would have a vigorous self-sustaining recovery under way by then.

By the beginning of 2010, it was already obvious that these concerns had been justified. Yet somehow an overwhelming consensus emerged among policy makers and pundits that nothing more should be done to create jobs, that, on the contrary, there should be a turn toward fiscal austerity.

This consensus was fed by scare stories about an imminent loss of market confidence in U.S. debt. Every uptick in interest rates was interpreted as a sign that the “bond vigilantes” were on the attack, and this interpretation was often reported as a fact, not as a dubious hypothesis.

For example, in March 2010, The Wall Street Journal published an article titled “Debt Fears Send Rates Up,” reporting that long-term U.S. interest rates had risen and asserting — without offering any evidence — that this rise, to about 3.9 percent, reflected concerns about the budget deficit. In reality, it probably reflected several months of decent jobs numbers, which temporarily raised optimism about recovery.
But never mind. Somehow it became conventional wisdom that the deficit, not unemployment, was Public Enemy No. 1 — a conventional wisdom both reflected in and reinforced by a dramatic shift in news coverage away from unemployment and toward deficit concerns. Job creation effectively dropped off the agenda.
So, here we are, in the middle of 2011. How are things going?

Well, the bond vigilantes continue to exist only in the deficit hawks’ imagination. Long-term interest rates have fluctuated with optimism or pessimism about the economy; a recent spate of bad news has sent them down to about 3 percent, not far from historic lows.

And the news has, indeed, been bad. As the stimulus has faded out, so have hopes of strong economic recovery. Yes, there has been some job creation — but at a pace barely keeping up with population growth. The percentage of American adults with jobs, which plunged between 2007 and 2009, has barely budged since then. And the latest numbers suggest that even this modest, inadequate job growth is sputtering out.

So, as I said, we have already repeated a version of the mistake of 1937, withdrawing fiscal support much too early and perpetuating high unemployment.
Yet worse things may soon happen.

On the fiscal side, Republicans are demanding immediate spending cuts as the price of raising the debt limit and avoiding a U.S. default. If this blackmail succeeds, it will put a further drag on an already weak economy.

Meanwhile, a loud chorus is demanding that the Fed and its counterparts abroad raise interest rates to head off an alleged inflationary threat. As the New York Fed article points out, the rise in consumer price inflation over the past few months — which is already showing signs of tailing off — reflected temporary factors, and underlying inflation remains low. And smart economists like Mr. Eggerstsson understand this. But the European Central Bank is already raising rates, and the Fed is under pressure to do the same. Further attempts to help the economy expand seem out of the question.

So the mistake of 2010 may yet be followed by an even bigger mistake. Even if that doesn’t happen, however, the fact is that the policy response to the crisis was and remains vastly inadequate.

Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it; we did, and we are. What we’re experiencing may not be a full replay of the Great Depression, but that’s little consolation for the millions of American families suffering from a slump that just goes on and on.
 
"Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it; we did, and we are."

That, we agree on.
 
Default is coming and it cannot be stopped.
Obstructionism is fun.

If it weren't for the Republicans in Congress the debt ceiling would be raised already, the stimulus would have been big enough (or a Democratic majority would pass more) to facilitate a much stronger economy than now, the deficit wouldn't be so bad(because we'd be bringing in more revenue)... etc, etc.
 
the dollar will not collapse b/c it is the most commonly used currency in the world.

inflation, deflation, and all the other -ations, are just fancy words used in academia. as long as we keep selling shit for US dollars and buying shit with US dollars, we can let the academics argue all they want, the dollar will be just fine....
 
The Dollar WILL collapse, only a matter of time. All fiat currencies collapse, Not a single one has ever survived for very long.

To have a double dip, you must have had a recovery first, we never had a recovery, were just worsening the situation is all. Spend as much as you like dear government, but the rest of the world will soon divest themselves of US Dollar reserves and then its Kaput.
 
"as Keynesianism becomes more obviously false, he has slipped to political pundit a la Olbermann. He is becoming positively irrelevant. Krugman's devolution has been sad to see. He was formerly a rather sharp economist, and I'd dare say perhaps deserving of the Nobel prize he received. To see him go from that to being a petty political troll is rather pathetic."

^
Couldn't of said it better...Krugman is becoming a political pundit - I feel he sold out to the establishment or he just hasn't caught up with the times as much as he thinks he has - the info war is upon us and this dude is still gunna be fartin around talking about fiscal conservatives while we are having world wide riots lmao

The people are way ahead of the politicians, this gap has done nothing but widen in the past 20 years.

Whens the krugman comdy tour start?
 
"as Keynesianism becomes more obviously false, he has slipped to political pundit a la Olbermann. He is becoming positively irrelevant. Krugman's devolution has been sad to see. He was formerly a rather sharp economist, and I'd dare say perhaps deserving of the Nobel prize he received. To see him go from that to being a petty political troll is rather pathetic."

^
Couldn't of said it better...Krugman is becoming a political pundit - I feel he sold out to the establishment or he just hasn't caught up with the times as much as he thinks he has - the info war is upon us and this dude is still gunna be fartin around talking about fiscal conservatives while we are having world wide riots lmao

The people are way ahead of the politicians, this gap has done nothing but widen in the past 20 years.

Whens the krugman comdy tour start?
Reposting it over and over doesn't make it more right - because it isn't. I'll be waiting for that empirical evidence on the failure of new Keynesianism btw.
 
pyramid-kap1.jpg
 
Reposting it over and over doesn't make it more right - because it isn't. I'll be waiting for that empirical evidence on the failure of new Keynesianism btw.

Im not very good at this stuff but...Well keep waiting cause there is no empirical evidence. It is a failure, just look at the financial crisis! simple enough...I believe some refer to it as the The New Keynesian models tooth fairy, the model has a number of important implications that seem to be at variance with the empirical evidence. It can not produce plausible inflation and output dynamics following a monetary shock, in particular, the delayed, hump shaped response of inflation aka Phillips curves. That it is inconsistent with this line of thinking(the positive relation between economic activity and the change in the inflation rate). it is unable to generate serial correlation in inflation forecast errors.the model is incapable generate a liquidity effect following a monetary shock.



The graphs from the University of Michigan's Survey of Consumers show something that isn't supposed to happen in New Keynesian macroeconomics. It's not that New Keynesian macroeconomics says it can't happen; it just assumes it doesn't happen. So if the empirical evidence says that it did just happen, Failure in crisis mode.

The second graph shows a big quick drop in US expected income growth in 2008. Prior to 2008, people had been expecting around 2.5% income growth over the next 12 months. That dropped to barely above 0% from 2009 onwards. Expected income growth fell by over 2.0% in 2008.
Was this real or nominal income? Presumably the survey participants interpreted the question to mean nominal income. But the first graph shows survey data on expected inflation over the next 12 months. Expected inflation jumps around a lot (less so for a 5 to 10-year horizon) but does not show consistently lower expected inflation after 2008 compared to before 2008. I conclude that expected real income growth also fell in 2008, by around the same 2.0%.
OK, so the stylised facts say there was a 2% drop in expected real income growth in 2008, which persists to the present. And we also know there was a drop in the level of actual real income, relative to trend, which also persists to the present. A recession. How do those stylised facts fit with the New Keynesian narrative of recessions?
Nothing in New Keynesian models rules out the possibility that real shocks to the aggregate supply side of the economy could cause a reduction in the actual and expected growth rate of real income. New Keynesian macroeconomists admit that real business cycles can happen, and occasionally even do happen. But they say this particular recession doesn't look like a real business cycle. It looks like a recession caused by a drop in Aggregate Demand. I agree, and don't want to argue that here in any case, so let's just accept that.
So what's the problem? Couldn't a drop in aggregate demand in 2008 have caused the recession, and also caused people to become more pessimistic about their future incomes, which reduced Aggregate Demand still further, and worsened the recession, as in a standard multiplier analysis? Sure it could. Indeed, it probably did.
But that multiplier analysis is not part of the standard New Keynesian model. It's something that disappeared along with the Old Keynesians. It doesn't belong at a New Keynesian party. It's all got to do with the distinction between levels and expected rates of change.
Take the simplest possible New Keynesian macro model:
1. Y(t) = E(t)[Y(t+1)] - B(R(t)-N(t))
2. R(t) = E(t-1)[N(t)] + M(t)
Equation 1 is the new IS curve. Y(t) is the deviation of real income from (an assumed constant) supply-side trend at time t. E(t)[Y(t+1)] is today's expectation of next period's deviation of income from trend. R(t) is the interest rate, and N(t) (the "natural" or "neutral" rate of interest) is what the interest rate would need to be to keep income at trend, provided expected future income were also at trend. That italicised bit is important. B is just some (positive) parameter.
Equation 2 is the monetary policy reaction function. The central bank tries to set R(t) equal to N(t), to keep prevent the economy deviating from trend. But I have assumed that the central bank has a one-period lag in getting information on N(t). So it makes random mistakes M(t) in monetary policy. And those mistakes cause booms and recessions. As shown in the standard solution to this model:
3. Y(t) = -BM(t)
What would a recession look like in this model?
The level of income is lower than trend because the central bank has set the rate of interest too high. But people expect the central bank to (on average) get it right next period, so that E(t)[Y(t+1)]=0 and the economy reverts to trend. This means that, in a recession, when the level of income is below trend, people expect their incomes to grow faster than trend. Which is exactly the opposite of what is happening now in the US.
The inuition is straightforward. Recessions are temporary, and caused by temporary mistakes in monetary policy, because central banks get information with a lag, or rect to that information with a lag, or because there's a lag between the central bank reacting to information and the economy responding. Whatever. Central banks don't have a crystal ball, and can't get monetary policy perfectly right. So we get booms and busts. But those booms and busts are temporary, and people will know this, and so when they are in a recession they will expect to come out of it eventually, and so will expect their future income to be high relative to their current income in the recession. Which means they expect above-normal income growth.
Which is not what is happening now, in the US.
In Old Keynesian models, an initial shock (for example the central bank setting the interest rate too high) causes an initial decline in demand and income. That initial decline in income causes people then revise downwards their expectations of current and future income, which causes a subsequent decline in demand and income, and so on. That is the Old Keynesian multiplier process. It's a deviation-amplifying positive feedback mechanism. But in a New Keynesian model, the expectation in a recession that future income will be higher than current income makes current demand and current income higher than it would otherwise be. The belief that the economy will revert to trend acts as a deviation-reducing negative feedback mechanism. Old and New Keynesianism are very different.
Now, why should people, rationally, expect their income to revert to trend? What's the fundamental re-equilibrating force that ends recessions in a New Keynesian model? The short answer is that there isn't one. Mathematicians will recognise that my solution 3 is just one of many possible solutions. Y(t) = A - BM(t), where A is any positive or negative number, also works. We just assume that people trust the central bank will do whatever it takes to bring income back to trend eventually, and work backwards from there. We assume there's a confidence fairy, in other words.
And now we have empirical evidence that the New Keynesian confidence fairy isn't working. We might even say that the failure of the New keynesian confidence fairy is sufficient, all by itself, to explain the recession. A permanent(?) 2% drop (OK, 2 percentage point drop, for the picky) in real income growth is a fairly big drop, historically. Previous drops, in previous recessions, were not that big and lasting, and were presumably matched in part by drops in expected inflation.
The failure of the New Keynesian confidence fairy is a pity, because she has a very big multiplier. Look again at equation 1. Suppose initially that E(t)[Y(t+1)]=Y(t)=0, and R(t)=N(t), so the economy is at trend and expected to remain at trend . Or maybe it's currently 10% below trend and expected to remain 10% below trend. Now assume the confidence fairy waves her wand and people expect 1% growth, relative to trend growth. 1% higher expected future income, holding R(t) and N(t) constant, causes 1% higher current income, which causes an additional 1% higher expected future income, which causes an additional 1% higher current income, and so on forever, until real capacity constraints eventually prevent the fairy magic working any more. It's a (potentially) infinite multiplier. Much better than that Old Keynesian 1/(1-mpc).
 
Half of Last Month's New Jobs Came from a Single Employer — McDonald's

11:13 AM, Jun 3, 2011 • By MARK HEMINGWAY




According to the unemployment data released this morning, the economy added only 54,000 jobs, pushing the unemployment rate up to 9.1 percent. However, this report from MarketWatch suggests the data is much worse than that:
McDonald’s ran a big hiring day on April 19 — after the Labor Department’s April survey for the payrolls report was conducted — in which 62,000 jobs were added. That’s not a net number, of course, and seasonal adjustment will reduce the Hamburglar impact on payrolls. (In simpler terms — restaurants always staff up for the summer; the Labor Department makes allowance for this effect.) Morgan Stanley estimates McDonald’s hiring will boost the overall number by 25,000 to 30,000. The Labor Department won’t detail an exact McDonald’s figure — they won’t identify any company they survey — but there will be data in the report to give a rough estimate.
If Morgan Stanley is correct, about half of last month's job growth came from the venerable fast-food chain. That is hardly the sign of a healthy economy.
 
States/cities are going bankrupt left and right, the economy is a mess, it will not recover, who cares about "empirical evidence" - try on common effing sense, any moron like me can probably figure out we cant debt our way out of debt - We need a change

Credit Suisse Group AG (CS), Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) and Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc (RBS) each borrowed at least $30 billion in 2008 from a Federal Reserve emergency lending program whose details weren’t revealed to shareholders, members of Congress or the public.

The $80 billion initiative, called single-tranche open- market operations, or ST OMO, made 28-day loans from March through December 2008, a period in which confidence in global credit markets collapsed after the Sept. 15 bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

Units of 20 banks were required to bid at auctions for the cash. They paid interest rates as low as 0.01 percent that December, when the Fed’s main lending facility charged 0.5 percent.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-as-0-01-.html
[video=youtube;tuBP-If2KqI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuBP-If2KqI&feature=channel_video_title[/video]
 
Ah beautiful weekend so far! Been outside a ton.

I just want to clear up a couple things for you with that article you posted:
couldn't a drop in aggregate demand in 2008 have caused the recession, and also caused people to become more pessimistic about their future incomes, which reduced Aggregate Demand still further, and worsened the recession, as in a standard multiplier analysis? Sure it could. Indeed, it probably did.

But that multiplier analysis is not part of the standard New Keynesian model. It's something that disappeared along with the Old Keynesians. It doesn't belong at a New Keynesian party. It's all got to do with the distinction between levels and expected rates of change.
For this guy to say that all Keynesian economists dont include this type of multiplier analysis is pretty dishonest - as the writer is lumping everyone together in a way similar to if I were to lump social conservatives and Libertarians because they both generally vote Republican.
So says Krugman:
I have my problems with New Keynesian analysis, but surely it demonstrated that Keynesian insights had something to them.
Here's Krugman's thought process to economics - known as the Samuelsonian synthesis:
he brand of economics I use in my daily work – the brand that I still consider by far the most reasonable approach out there – was largely established by Paul Samuelson back in 1948, when he published the first edition of his classic textbook. It’s an approach that combines the grand tradition of microeconomics, with its emphasis on how the invisible hand leads to generally desirable outcomes, with Keynesian macroeconomics, which emphasizes the way the economy can develop magneto trouble, requiring policy intervention. In the Samuelsonian synthesis, one must count on the government to ensure more or less full employment; only once that can be taken as given do the usual virtues of free markets come to the fore.
Economics is a complicated profession. New Keynesianism is not a single school of thought as it's a sort of mixture between old Keynesianism and new classical theory. Different economists, depending on where and when they learned the profession - may believe in very different ideas. The Chicago school for example, has guys like Professor Casey Mulligan, who completely denounces Keynesianism in it's entirety while at the same time you've got guys from MIT, like Krugman, who alludes to the type of multiplier effects described that apparently is "missing" from New Keynesianism. Krugman also talks about these multiplier effects in detail throughout his book "Depression economics and the crisis of 2008".

Here is where it gets good though:
nd now we have empirical evidence that the New Keynesian confidence fairy isn't working. We might even say that the failure of the New keynesian confidence fairy is sufficient, all by itself, to explain the recession.
This is correct, in that the Confidence fairy has been disproven by emprical evidence. What is incorrect is that "the Confidence fairy" is an idea supported solely or entirely by New Keynesianism... Many people still believe in the "confidence fairy" - Keynesians and New Classicals alike. One time recently backstage "Meet The Press" Krugman found out he was the only one in the room who did not believe in the "confidence fairy". Krugman argues against the idea of a "confidence fairy" often - especially lately, as that is what Austerity is based on (the idea that cutting government spending leads to investor confidence which then leads to investment, employment, demand). He even goes so far as to compare the "confidence fairy" to Leprechauns. Once again, this article generalizes, badly.
 
Gotta love that Austerity...
FORTUNE – For all of Washington's bickering over the debt ceiling and all the battle cries for government budget cuts, it's important to point out that there's already a back-door austerity plan well under way and it's showing its very dreary colors in cities and states across America. Just take a look at today's unemployment figures for May. Job growth slowed sharply, adding only 54,000 nonfarm payroll jobs, compared with 232,000 jobs added in April. What's interesting is that private sector employment has continued to trend up, while governments struggling with severe budget shortfalls have shed workers in corporate cost-cutting fashion.
Employment in local government declined by 28,000 in May over the previous month. Since job growth across governments peaked in 2008, city managers and state governors have shed 446,000 jobs and are expected to cut more in the coming months. All the while, private businesses have been adding headcount, albeit much too slowly to keep up with the growing number of people looking for work. Private-sector employment for May rose by 83,000, although by a much smaller amount than the average 244,000 during the prior three months.
Employment in professional and business services continued to rise in May, adding 44,000 jobs, with noteworthy gains in accounting and bookkeeping services and in computer systems design. The health care industry also added head count by 17,000, although somewhat lower than the 24,000 jobs per month generated during the past 12 months.
And while manufacturing, one of the few bright spots in an otherwise gloomy jobs market, barely added any jobs in May, employment didn't fall nearly as much as seen in state and local governments.
So while Washington goes on to bash governments for spending way too much, the pains of austerity have more than shown themselves. And it's just going to get more painful from here.(CNNMoney)
 
take your paper money and buy houses and rent them out. safe secure bet
thats what they said 5 years ago, I recently bought a then 54k house for 15k after selling my used car.

[video=youtube;SxJVv3LEPrA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxJVv3LEPrA[/video]
 
thats what they said 5 years ago,



you can get a $300 house for $200 right now, america will rise again and then the house will be $300 again, in 10 - 15 years hopfully

simply put there needs to be big cuts in defense and government services and alls good, just cut them and lets get on with it. someone has to do it. draconian cuts and move on. put laws in place forcing us to only spend what we take in and call it a day.


if i was dictator for a day thats all it would take to fix our problems. that and healing time. America Will Rise Again!!!!


 
Back
Top