Why Isn't the Economy Worse?

July 21, 2008 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (14)

Given that we are supposed to be in the worst housing and financial crisis since the Great Depression, it is certainly curious—at least to the media, left-of-center economists, and Wall Street permabears—that like, you know, the economy is sorta-kinda OK. (My pal Bob Stein, economist over at First Trust Advisers, thinks real GDP grew at 3 percent in the second quarter.)

Here's puzzled economist and blogger Brad DeLong:

I still do not understand why the real side of the economy is doing so well in relative terms. The worst financial distress since the Great Depression ought to trigger the worst downturn in demand, production, and employment since the Great Depression. It hasn't—at least not so far.

Me: My theory is that the amazing resilience of the American economy through this slowdown—as well as the lack of a bad recession in a generation—is indirect proof that the 25-year economic expansion that started in 1982 made us far richer as a nation than the economic numbers suggest. I have continually offered that the inflation numbers used by the government have for years overstated how much prices have risen. Plus, the wage numbers put out by the government are currently being revised to better reflect the shift in jobs from "old economy" to "new economy."

Have American living standards, as Democrats often suggest, really been stagnant since the 1970s? I doubt it.

Tim Duy over at Economists' View has his own theory.

Tags:
economy

Reader Comments Read all comments (14)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

"I am concerned about the falling dollar."

That's a good start to seeing the light. The falling dollar is directly a consequence of a $10 trillion dollar debt.

This is inflationary credit driven economic policy that favors those who already have wealth and ultimately it's doomed to failure as more and more wealth is concentrated at the top and the the rest see stagnant or falling incomes and have less and less to spend.

muirgeo of 4:25PM July 23, 2008

"Indeed government was mistaken when they overturn the Glass-Stegal Act that more tightly regulated who could gamble with the backing of the taxpayers money."

Actually, no. Whether there was a Glass-Steagall act or not, government created the conditions in which it allowed banks to lend more and more money to high risk individuals. On top of that, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would not have been covered by Glass-Steagall.

"We should go back to the that act and more. We should seperate our economies into two groups. One that acts on complete free market principles with no rules or backing of the US government and one that has well regulated rules and is allowed to borrow from and be backed by the government."

See above. Your lack of understanding of these issues is what is revealed to be foolish.

Chris of AZ 7:02PM July 22, 2008

"Of course, in your analysis, you seem to forget to mention that government is probably the biggest concern that has created this mess."

Indeed government was mistaken when they overturn the Glass-Stegal Act that more tightly regulated who could gamble with the backing of the taxpayers money.

We should go back to the that act and more. We should seperate our economies into two groups. One that acts on complete free market principles with no rules or backing of the US government and one that has well regulated rules and is allowed to borrow from and be backed by the government.

I'll put my money in the latter every time. The free market fools have shown themselves to be scoundrels and oppertunist everytime. While good regulation and oversight leads to steady growth and shared prosperity.

muirgeo of CA 6:21PM July 22, 2008

Capital Commerce

U.S. News business reporter Matthew Bandyk examines the issues, people, and debates that shape the nexus of political and economic life in the nation's capital.

advertisement

advertisement