« Top Chef | Main | Ways that sheep can die »
Why this recession might last a while
The column is entitled: "Finding the Mess Behind the Mess." The key line is:
The fundamental [macroeconomic] problem in the American economy is that, for years, people treated rising asset prices as a substitute for personal savings.
After discussing some adjustment problems, here are comments on policy:
One path that is likely to prove counterproductive is further fiscal stimulus in the form of tax rebates. Such stimulus can raise consumer spending and bolster the economy in the short run, but it works — if it works at all — only by pushing consumers to spend rather than to save. It merely postpones needed adjustments by providing a grab bag of goodies at exactly the wrong time.
Here is the conclusion:
Have you ever tried to undo a bunch of tangled wires or cords? If you don’t pull on the right wires in the right order, the mess becomes worse. If you pull too hard, the whole thing can break. But if your first pulls are good ones, the untangling becomes easier with each move.
That’s like our economy’s situation today. If we expect too much too quickly, we’ll make matters worse. But there is a way out of the mess, and it lies in our hands.
Be careful, and start pulling.
I've become increasingly interested in how an economy can be "tangled up," a notion I first learned from Axel Leijonhufvud. The literature on self-organizing critical systems considers this idea, but I don't think it has been expressed in simple, intuitive form and in a manner that can be integrated with other macroeconomic ideas.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 24, 2008 at 07:31 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
In his google talk, Michael Heller suggests breaking some gridlock in the anti-commons might help this recovery.
That actually makes sense to me. It's a new kind of "deregulation."
Posted by: odograph at Aug 24, 2008 8:16:12 AM
I think a lot of this is attributable to collective short-sightedness. Very few people seem to consider periods of time longer than a quarter, which seems quite dangerous from an investment perspective, whether that be personal or corporate investments. If people can't/won't look farther down the line than 1-3 months, then that means they'll not be able to see a future without this current economic mess. And *that* is how everything gets all twisted-up. It drives a lot of decisions that have an immediate/short-term effect without even trying to consider the long-term effects.
Posted by: Ben at Aug 24, 2008 8:57:26 AM
In a long run scenario and with positive, variable inflation, choosing hard assets (especially real estate) over financial assets may make sense, even with higher price variability of hard assets due to leverage, because of the inflation factor. Basic CAPM combined with an inflation factor.
chsw
Posted by: chsw at Aug 24, 2008 11:23:03 AM
I am mostly in agreement with you about the need for savings to increase. It is, however, worth noting, and I'm somewhat disappointed that you did not note, that some economists began to argue some years ago that the national income accounts definition of savings was wrong, precisely because it did not count rising asset prices as a (real) component of savings. If people saw those arguments, and took them seriously, then our profession bears some of the responsibility for what has happened.
Posted by: Donald A. Coffin at Aug 24, 2008 11:40:39 AM
Can you recommend some papers on your "tangled up" notion? Both by Axel Leijonhufvud and others.
Thanks.
Posted by: brainwarped at Aug 24, 2008 11:58:10 AM
If a recession is an economic correction then it would follow that there are deficiencies with the current US economic policy. For the past several years the federal reserve has tried to mask the underlying problems with the economy by manipulating monetary policy. Now that they have reduced rates to about as low as they can they are powerless to do anything further. A side affect of their rate reductions is that interest rates are so low they are at or below inflation and it makes personal savings a losing proposition.
Here are some more knots that many Americans would like to untangle: The national debt, health care costs, foreign trade imbalance, and lower wages adjusted for inflation.
We can safely assume that the market will indeed correct all these imbalances but unfortunately most Americans will like the reality of the results. Here is a question for other readers: are there any economists out there brave enough to challenge the establishment on these unsustainable imbalances?
Posted by: Gadfly at Aug 24, 2008 12:57:03 PM
Isn't the knot idea just a restatement of the traditional bottleneck argument about barriers to growth. "Pulling the string" is what a government does when it tries to find the constraining barrier. Investment in the wrong type of infrastructure will not help and waste money, possibly making the "knot" worse.
Posted by: David Jinkins at Aug 24, 2008 1:06:11 PM
I dont know what to make of the economy but I see thousands of high paying jobs posted on employment sites, this is a great barometer...
www.indeed.com (keyword)
www.simplyhired.com (keyword)
www.realmatch.com (matching)
Lots of $150k jobs!
Posted by: James at Aug 24, 2008 1:36:52 PM
James, there are a number of reasons companies keep ads open. Some might be willing to hire the perfect person, and leave the welcome mat out for that day. Some like to interview competitor's staff and ask what they've been doing lately. Gross stats on numbers of jobs offered would be good, but if you could get a line on employees placed that would be even better.
The ADP numbers are a pretty good proxy for that: www.adpemploymentreport.com
Posted by: odograph at Aug 24, 2008 2:16:44 PM
We're in a a huge mess all right, but it was all pretty predictable.
The gov't budget deficit is the biggest and most direct way the gov't affects our national savings. Seven years ago, we had record surpluses and economists like Alan Greenspan were worrying that we'd save TOO MUCH.
Then Bush came into office with a plan to slash taxes, which he did, while boosting military spending enormously. The mythical Laffer curve notwithstanding, those surpluses has been followed with record deficits and record borrowing from other nations.
The first rule of holes is that when you're in one, stop digging. It will be interesting to see how well voters, and pundits, learn from the experience of the past few administrations.
Posted by: a student of economics at Aug 24, 2008 2:43:59 PM
The metaphor is tantalizing but also disconcerting. I wonder: Is the present economy really so delicate that it can be broken by pulling on the wrong wires? If so, it seems the recommendation would be “Don’t touch!” rather than (carefully) “Start pulling!” Moreover, the metaphor seems to assume an agent outside the economy to do the pulling. Who, or what, will be the agent? Why should it be trusted? I am skeptical that this imagery will do anything other than encourage evermore ill-fated tinkering – just let *me* get my hands on that knot!
Posted by: blink at Aug 24, 2008 3:13:44 PM
Which recession? Where? The one in the US with the new defintion - back to back quarters of positive GDP growth and a media hostile to the White House?
Posted by: Tom Hanna at Aug 24, 2008 3:28:54 PM
choosing hard assets (especially real estate)
Without the corresponding wage inflation, real estate will fall in a high inflation environment. Higher interest rates on loans, means you can't afford as much house. Spending more money on other necessities also does the same.
Posted by: JordanT at Aug 24, 2008 3:50:51 PM
The first rule of holes is that when you're in one, stop digging. It will be interesting to see how well voters, and pundits, learn from the experience of the past few administrations.
But the first rule of budget deficits is that it's OK to run one in a recession. Maybe not a rule, but a generally accepted principle. Neither McCain nor Obama are making any promises about fiscal conservatism and I don't think serious attempts for a balanced budget will come until after the economy rebounds.
Which recession? Where? The one in the US with the new defintion - back to back quarters of positive GDP growth and a media hostile to the White House?
Rising unemployment, yo. People buying less stuff. The financial sector is tanking. I heard a bunch of people lost their houses too.
Posted by: k at Aug 24, 2008 3:57:20 PM
Don't get hung up on the economic definition of a recession... If anything, you should be hung on why its OK to compare the Japanese economy to the US economy.
An NBER search resulted in a Paul Krugman article!!! Someone put me on the right path here, please. I don't know if I can believe this is what Tyler is referring to.
Posted by: brainwarped at Aug 24, 2008 4:54:45 PM
But the first rule of budget deficits is that it's OK to run one in a recession.
Better if you weren't running a big deficit before the recession.
The cure the IMF etc have imposed on other nations in that situation, argentina etc, was to require them to devalue their currency until their foreign lenders could buy stuff cheap. Then there were plenty of jobs producing stuff for export, but not a whole lot to buy with the money because the stuff they made was leaving the country. Work hard, live poor, the recession is over.
But nobody's in a position to impose that on us. Are they?
Posted by: J Thomas at Aug 24, 2008 7:30:14 PM
But Alex Tabarrok said there was no real estate bubble!!
Posted by: Dirk at Aug 24, 2008 7:37:18 PM
The analogy is wrong. The only thing that can screws things up is government intervention.
Posted by: jorod at Aug 24, 2008 7:49:48 PM
Soon enough the government will find itself not pulling, but pushing on a string.
Posted by: at Aug 24, 2008 8:36:37 PM
I dislike the analogy. The goal in untangling a knot is to take a complex, highly coupled system, and separate it into individual linear components. But a healthy economy is a complex, highly coupled system, perhaps even moreso than than an unhealthy one. The knottiness of the economy may make prescribing solutions for helping a troubled one difficult or even intractable, but the knottiness itself is not the the problem.
Posted by: Cyrus at Aug 24, 2008 8:51:39 PM
people treated rising asset prices as a substitute for personal savings
This remark is somewhat baffling. My retirement fund is heavily invested in mutual funds and common stocks. Is this not "savings"?
Does Tyler really have all of his money in a sock in his bottom drawer?
Posted by: Tom T. at Aug 25, 2008 12:05:34 AM
"The literature on self-organizing critical systems considers this idea, but I don't think it has been expressed in simple, intuitive form and in a manner that can be integrated with other macroeconomic ideas. "
In other words, other people have worked it out, but we macroeconomics are too obtuse to understand their ideas.
I have always suspected that economists (and especially macroeconomists) are much less smart on average than they beleive themselves to be, but this was a particularly succint example.
And yes, I'm a macroeconomist.
Posted by: heh indeed at Aug 25, 2008 2:15:26 AM
...who occasionally makes typos.
Posted by: heh indeed at Aug 25, 2008 2:16:31 AM
My mommy taught me the best way to undo a knot is to push into it.
In other words, you can push on a string!
The savings question seems to have two sides to the coin, at least. First, is investment, and second is folks, especially old ones, having resources for the future.
Is not too much house and rising asset prices too much savings from the individual perspective? A lot of the stimulus went to pay down debt, right? That's sort of savings.
So, is it a question of savings versus investment? Rather than going into investments that yield increased productivity, the money went to inflate home prices and buy plasma TVs because they felt richer?
So, the people bought depreciating assets and the government bought Humvees and prescription drugs that eventually get excreted and swirled down the drain, just like war spending.
The people thought they wanted a war in Iraq, now they don't. That's essentially the definition of a malinvestment.
But, it's not really a recession because there is no "snap" to it. There is a housing bubble, and a financial crisis, but these haven't really hit the economy that much. There was really no acute inflation to necessitate a bust.
The longer it lasts the better. It's when you have to untie a knot fast that you get in trouble.
Posted by: Andrew at Aug 25, 2008 4:15:59 AM
gadfly: "Here are some more knots that many Americans would like to untangle: The national debt, health care costs, foreign trade imbalance, and lower wages adjusted for inflation."
Why do you see our current account deficit and capital account surplus to be a "knot"? If Americans want to send dollars overseas for less expensive goods - and foreigners want to use those dollars earned to buy and create U.S. assets - what is the problem? It's not as if foreigners are "buying up the USA". As long as the net worth of U.S. households continues to rise (in the long run), it should not make any difference that foreigners are also taking advantage of the U.S. economic engine.
Posted by: John Dewey at Aug 25, 2008 4:42:01 AM






