Economist Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate and New York Times columnist has suggested a solution to this Great Recession. It is a controversial suggestion and one that flies in the face of today’s political wisdom. It just might work.
A common fallacy among Americans is that Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s economic policies extricated the United States from the Great Depression of the 1930s. Others, with more knowledge of those times, recognize that it was the onset of World War II and the U.S. preparation to wage that war, which truly pulled us out of that economic mire. But stripping that truth down to its bare essentials leaves us with one fact.
To pull this country out of the Great Depression, government spending had to be raised to 43.6% of GDP in 1943, 43.6% in 1944 and 41.9% in 1945. Only in 1946 did spending drop back to 24.8%. In his new book, “End This Depression Now,” Krugman argues that the answer to our present economic dilemma, which he terms “a second depression,” is to spend our way out of recession as we did during WWII.
As today’s leading proponent of legendary economist John Maynard Keynes, Paul Krugman believes his mentor had it right when he advised government that “the boom, not the slump, is the time for austerity.” He argues that Keynes’s definition of a depression, “a chronic condition of subnormal activity for a considerable period without any marked tendency towards recovery or toward collapse,” applies to our economic reality today. We are in what Keynes referred to as a liquidity trap in which an indebted private sector is so intent on rebuilding its savings that even interest rates of zero cannot tempt it to borrow and spend enough to get the economy working again at full capacity.
Sound familiar?
Of course Krugman’s ideas fly directly in the face of all the austerity rhetoric that is emanating from both political parties during the run-up to November’s presidential elections. Both parties seem to believe that the only way forward is to either raise taxes on some; (or cut taxes on others) and cut spending.
In fact, raising taxes and cutting spending is exactly what Herbert Hoover did back in the early 1930s, just as the economy was struggling to recover from the crash of 1929. In my opinion, Hoover’s austerity policies, like those that many conservatives are advocating today, are what drove this country from a prolonged recession into its first Great Depression.
In essence, Krugman is suggesting we increase government spending back to the levels of WWII, if necessary. Today, government in total spends around 36% of GDP, if you include all goods, services, cash and transfer payments. That represents over one third of all spending in this country. Clearly Krugman’s answer to solving this country’s woes would make government bigger while creating the most powerful economic entity we’ve seen since the 1940s.
In the end, we may very well do just what Krugman suggests. I don’t believe the majority of Americans will consciously vote for austerity. Raising their own taxes and cutting spending that they need—especially on Medicare and Social Security–would not be in our individual interests, regardless of how well it may be for the future posterity of our children and children’s children.
The two biggest concerns American voters will have as they vote this year is staying employed or getting re-employed. Worries over the debt ceiling, the deficit and America’s future concern us theoretically but those issues do not impact our pocket book today. If Americans are faced with a program of prolonged austerity after the November elections, I am convinced that they will vote the responsible party out of office as soon as possible.
Under that scenario, if borrowing, spending more and ultimately inflating our national debt away is easier (and safer) than austerity, then guess what most politicians will do? If you doubt that, ask yourself who was the more popular President—Hoover or FDR? That’s my point.
A note to my readers in the Berkshires:
I have volunteered to teach a course this fall at Berkshire Community College at the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute (OLLI). The classes will be on Mondays from 2:45-4:15 PM throughout September and October. The course, entitled “America’s Future: Buy, Sell or Hold?” will teach students to think critically about such events as this year’s presidential elections, wealth and women, our education system and much more. For more information or to sign up for the course call the OLLI Office at 413-236-2190.


Joe
May I ask you to remind your readers what FDR’s 1944 budget ‘bought’ with their 43/6% of GDP. They financed the American response to total war. 11 million in uniform (think payroll here), the expansion of every aspect of industry: mining, ship building, armaments, agriculture, food processing, transportation, machine tools, etc: it’s an endless list. The only thing we constricted spending on was entertainment (I think).
Employment concerns? There weren’t any except for the fact that we needed more workers.
What else did 46.3% buy? This expenditure poised the US for the single greatest peacetime expansion in any country’s economic history. We had the factories, the tools, the transportation systems in place to convert the above segments into sources of consumer goods. And, the returning manpower wanted to ‘consume’. Add to this the forward thinking G.I. Bill and you have the proverbial ‘perfect storm’ of governemnt support and realization of economic potential.
What could we expect from the government today if they raised their spending level to a similar percentatge? At 36% of today’s GDP, we have some evidence about what they would do. Tell us about the stimulus packages and the “quantative easings” which have failed. And what about the bailout of an auto company which makes inferior products and still can’t compete with foreign producers? Then there are the states which took Federal money and used it to balance their own inflated budgets so they didn’t have to make the hard choices. The evidence is this government would increase spending with no regard for fostering and growing economic potential
As the war was winding down in 1945 and the industrial sector was poised to return to consumer goods, we had the factories and the tools in place to meet the demand. What do we have today?
In my opinion, any comparison of today’s economic realities with the FDR wartime budgets is nonsense.
Government is THE problem: it’s the tax, tax, spend, spend mantra in full cry.
We’ve tried ‘big goverment’ of should I say “really big government” and, it doesn’t work. It’s the anomally of the times: the government doesn’t work but it still gets paid.
Joe