Stagnation ahead?

Paul Krugman’s column, which is on the Times site tonight, but will be in print tomorrow, reminds us that the danger is not the deficit — not in the short term, anyway — but the likelihood that we are entering a long period of economic stagnation, a “lost decade,” and that we are not doing enough to prevent it.

Interest rates, he said, have ticked up and the right back down, and that stagnation appears to be what is ahead — and not a healthy recovery or a Greek-style collapse of confidence by the people who loan us money.

What they actually reflect, however, is a surge of pessimism about the prospects for economic recovery, pessimism that has sent investors fleeing out of anything that looks risky — hence, the plunge in the stock market — into the perceived safety of U.S. government debt.

What’s behind this new pessimism? It partly reflects the troubles in Europe, which have less to do with government debt than you’ve heard; the real problem is that by creating the euro, Europe’s leaders imposed a single currency on economies that weren’t ready for such a move. But there are also warning signs at home, most recently Wednesday’s report on consumer prices, which showed a key measure of inflation falling below 1 percent, bringing it to a 44-year low.

This isn’t really surprising: you expect inflation to fall in the face of mass unemployment and excess capacity. But it is nonetheless really bad news. Low inflation, or worse yet deflation, tends to perpetuate an economic slump, because it encourages people to hoard cash rather than spend, which keeps the economy depressed, which leads to more deflation. That vicious circle isn’t hypothetical: just ask the Japanese, who entered a deflationary trap in the 1990s and, despite occasional episodes of growth, still can’t get out. And it could happen here.

So what we should really be asking right now isn’t whether we’re about to turn into Greece. We should, instead, be asking what we’re doing to avoid turning Japanese. And the answer is, nothing.

It’s not that nobody understands the risk. I strongly suspect that some officials at the Fed see the Japan parallels all too clearly and wish they could do more to support the economy. But in practice it’s all they can do to contain the tightening impulses of their colleagues, who (like central bankers in the 1930s) remain desperately afraid of inflation despite the absence of any evidence of rising prices. I also suspect that Obama administration economists would very much like to see another stimulus plan. But they know that such a plan would have no chance of getting through a Congress that has been spooked by the deficit hawks.

In short, fear of imaginary threats has prevented any effective response to the real danger facing our economy.

Employment numbers are more a blip than a surge

I don’t mean to be a downer, but the 163,000 jobs created last month — which includes people working for the Census Bureau — barely covers what is needed to offset the number of new workers entering the work force. That’s just not good enough, given that we’ve lost about half a million jobs a month for the last 15 months.

We need a far more aggressive jobs plan, one that will create 750,000 to 1 million jobs a month for the next year to 18 months.

Anything less will leave too many people out of the economy.

Driving the rich away

I have my doubts about this study — not its findings or methodology, but the political bias it plays into.

Commissioned by the state Chamber of Commerce and conducted by a Boston College institute — the Center for Wealth and Philanthropy — that has endorsed a repeal of the estate tax, the study has found that rich folks are leaving the state and taking their money with them. The reason for this “exodus of wealth,” according to “local experts and economists,” was

a series of changes in the state’s tax structure — including increases in the income, sales, property and “millionaire” taxes.

“This study makes it crystal clear that New Jersey’s tax policies are resulting in a significant decline in the state’s wealth,” said Dennis Bone, chairman of the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce and president of Verizon New Jersey.

So who are these experts The Star-Ledger is quoting? Well, there is the Chamber, of course, and Jim Hughes, dean of the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University, and a certified public accountant that offers some anecdotal evidence. Not exactly an exhaustive attempt to get past the what of the so-called wealth transfer to the why. The Chamber, as we know, has a political agenda (profit, profit and more profit), while our accountant friend offers a nice touch but not much in the way of real empirical evidence.

As for Hughes, he is an important researcher and academic, he also has a tendency to speak in a pro-business, pro-developer language that has always left me wondering how much of his analysis is tinged with a pro-corporate bias.

So, you’ll have to excuse my skepticism when reading this report. I’m having trouble buying it.

Do the math, Mr. President

Just to re-emphasize my point from yesterday, the president is planning to announce a spending freeze during a recession, which is bad policy when the housing market remains in the tank and unemployment is sky high.