news-record.com

OPINION

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Krugman misstates recession’s causes

Thursday, July 2, 2009
(Updated 3:00 am)

Counterpoint:

By Walter Sperko
 

Could it be that when you become a Nobel Prize winner, you get to make up your own facts? This appears to be the case in Paul Krugman’s “Current economic crisis had origins in Reagan administration” (N&R, June 2).

Krugman characterized our current recession as “the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.” I remember the 1979-1982 recession: unemployment at 10.8 percent, interest rates and inflation in double digits. Stagflation. Lines to get gasoline. Worse than today, by a long shot.

He claimed that the federal debt fell steadily from the end of World War II until Reagan was elected. The U.S. Government Printing Office historical budget tables show the deficit on average around one-half percent of GDP annually until 1974 when it bumped to around 3 percent for six years until Reagan came to office in 1981. Sorry, Mr. Krugman, the deficit bump predated Reagan.

He blamed our current recession on Reagan’s deregulation of banking. He conveniently forgot the federal government’s feel-good meddling in banking: the Community Reinvestment Act of 1979 that, in later revisions, demanded that banks meet quotas in lending to the “under served”; Fannie and Freddie buying up questionable loans, taking banks off the hook, putting the taxpayers on the hook; the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003, giving those unable to save a down payment free money; Alan Greenspan’s too-loose money policies. All of these resulted in rapid expansion of home ownership from 64 percent of families in 1994 to 69 percent by 2004. A good thing, but many who bought could not pay and the bubble burst.

He blamed “Reagan-era deregulation” for our “poor savings rate.” Did you know that the government doesn’t count retirement accounts (IRAs, 401(k)s, etc.) as savings? What is a retirement account if not savings?

Traditional savings accounts get taxed annually (resulting in a negative return after inflation). The same money in an IRA earns interest that stays in the account untaxed, compounding on itself. As long as government continues taxing savings accounts and Americans have better options, savings will be anemic. The savings rate has nothing to do with deregulation. It has to do with stupid tax laws and stupid government accounting practices.

Krugman demeans the worth and stature of the Nobel Prize by his sloppy, politically driven writing. Maybe his work was always that way, but the Nobel committee liked his politics and degraded the caliber of the prize.

The writer lives in Greensboro.
 

Comments

This letter has been closed to new comments. Comments on letters to the editor are only accepted for 24 hours.

Inappropriate content? Please notify us.

rahrah

July 2, 2009 - 3:59 am EDT

I suppose this is the column.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/opinion/01krugman.html

"Sorry, Mr. Krugman, the deficit bump predated Reagan."

Krugman made no claim about deficits. He did claim that the debt as a percentage of nominal GDP fell steadily from WWII until Reagan's presidency. This is true.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1940_1980&view...

J D R

July 2, 2009 - 5:47 am EDT

Ya beat me to it, rahrah

Rufus_T.Firefly

July 2, 2009 - 7:38 am EDT

"Could it be that when you become a Nobel Prize winner, you get to make up your own facts?"

More likely when you write a LTTE to the N&R, you get to make up your own facts?

Portending Credit Card Ronnie as anything other than a big spending wastrel suggests that the Nobel prize Mr. Sperko in truly interested is the one for fiction. It was a great trip down (mis)memory lane though.

zeus80

July 2, 2009 - 9:30 pm EDT

Excellent, amusing comment, firefly! Couldn't do better myself. Thanks.

zeus80

July 2, 2009 - 5:20 am EDT

Mr. Sperko seems to be very upset over what I consider to be a very trivial matter in light of the important things that are happening in the world today. He must be a Republican!.

J D R

July 2, 2009 - 5:52 am EDT

Here's an interesting Blog-note (by another) that, imho, sums it well:

==

I don’t assign too much blame to Reagan personally ... Reagan was merely the popularizer of what I call Reaganism, which is the doctrine that America can be prosperous without investing in the future. Reagan didn’t invent this idea, but he was its most powerful mouthpiece.

Under Reaganism, regulations to safeguard the American people were eliminated. Salaries for the average individual stagnated, while CEOs grew fat off the increased productivity of the average worker. The infrastructure that had driven American prosperity for 50 years–education, science, roads, schools, ports–was starved for funding and literally allowed to crumble. Trade barriers with China and Japan tumbled even as these nations successfully waged an economic war against us that was designed to drive our manufacturing sector out of existence.

Why? Why did they do it? Because they hated America?

No.

Because they didn’t want to pay an extra nickel a gallon in gas tax. Because they didn’t want to pay a penny more for a new broom. Because they didn’t want to see their “hard earned tax dollars” going to those “undeserving poverty rats.”

That attitude is Reaganism, and that attitude is what got us in this mess. We are only reaping the harvest of seeds sown 30 years ago and tended to by Reagan, Bush, Clinton and George W. Bush.

I don’t blame Reagan. I blame Reaganism, and ... we’re reaping what we sowed.

ghost from white oak

July 2, 2009 - 8:40 am EDT

I hope you will gladly reap what the Supreme leader is now sowing. He is truly thinking of the future, and leaving it with massive debt to prove it.
And just as an by product more guvmint control over more things than one could ever have imagined.

J D R

July 2, 2009 - 8:59 am EDT

We'll see, Ghost .. I hope we get around these problems .. but here are a couple more thoughts:

1 - On the way home last night I listened to Hannity. He said someting to the effect that this MASSIVE DEBT Being piled up by Obama .. which kinda overlooks a) the debt was almost $10 Trillion before Obama came in .. now it is $11.7 Trillion .. so perhaps Obama can hold 20% of the responsibility, but not 100% as Hannity (and his like) are currently ranting about.

2 - What do Hannity (and his like) suggest as alternatives? For all the Yes Sirs that Rush personally issued to Cheney, the Obamahaters sure left a freaking mess - starting with the January 2008 $145 billion stimulus package followed by:

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
Troubled Assets Relief.. (TARP)
Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility

...
But yea, all Obama.

3 - What do you recommend?

neocon

July 2, 2009 - 6:51 am EDT

When will Krugman write a book so that his observations on conservatism will be set in stone and no one can question his motives? That's the problem with weekly columns, not everyone takes your rants seriously and some may even say that you never met a conservative that you didn't hate, but string a series of rants into 3 or 4 hundred pages and you become beyond reproach. Your rants will be used to rebut any critique of liberal policies that may rear it's ugly and uninformed head.

Good lte.

J D R

July 2, 2009 - 8:43 am EDT

neocon

July 2, 2009 - 1:42 pm EDT

Yes, I knew Krugman had several books published. I meant, and should have said, a book about Reagan specifically to explain why all our economic woes can be traced back to him.

It goes without saying that Jimmy Carter, Bawnie Fwank, Chris Dudd, et al are as pure as the wind driven snow and blameless in the housing fiasco. After all, all they wanted was for all Americans to share in the American dream of owning their own home, right? (never mind that they couldn't afford it, but it's the thought that counts...right?)

J D R

July 2, 2009 - 5:43 pm EDT

afaik, the bad guys in the housing fiasco do not include any of those folks, Neo.

Carter instituted a program where some portion of federal money that was being stored in the Big Banks would be redirected to Little Banks. fwiw and interesting twist, the overwhelming majority of banks that are in trouble are the Big Financials.

afaik, the worst think Barney and Chris did were to puff big and (apparently) scared the rest of Congress as well as the WH .. "preventing them" making any adjustments. Congress and the White House tried, I'm "sure".

afaik, the bad guys in the housing fiasco did include Clinton & the Republican Congress who signed two bills - one with zero floor debate - effectively eliminating all reasonable lines between the different types of financial houses.

afaik, the bad guys in the housing fiasco did include Bush & the SEC who gave a special exemption to specific financial houses - names we are all-to familiar with - providing a waiver of rules and allowing them to increase leverage from 12-1 to what ever they wanted - which ended up being 40 to 1 in some cases.

afaik, the bad guys in the housing fiasco Did include "The Producers" that ran the brokerages and who evolved the system from prudent mortages all the way to no-asset / no-income loans.

... but you go ahead and blame whom-ever. Enjoy!

neocon

July 2, 2009 - 7:47 pm EDT

"but you go ahead and blame whom-ever"

Thank you, I will. And I'll lay the lion's share of blame where it belongs: Jimmy Carter and his "affirmative action" banking schemes designed to place minorities in homes, whether they could afford them or not...after all it's the thought that counts, right?...besides, the printing presses are operating admirably to remedy of the situation.

But we've been through this pissin' contest before and I really see no point in rehashing it. I'll just say that this and let you bring the curtain down: The democrats are responsible for 90% of the housing market collapse. The reason I say this is because it is the democrats that demanded the banks make risky loans to people who could not afford them. Bonnie Fwank did some serious arm twisting to make it happen. Believe and blame whom-ever you want.

Gotta go and make some phone calls and arrange some festivities for the 4th. I'm thinking there is a very real possibility this holiday may cease to exist in the near future.

J D R

July 2, 2009 - 5:39 pm EDT

I've never read a Krugman book .. but expect he would in general go along with the summary I stole from eleswhere:

"Reagan was merely the popularizer of .. Reaganism .. the doctrine that America can be prosperous without investing in the future. Reagan didn’t invent this idea, but he was its most powerful mouthpiece.

"Under Reaganism, regulations to safeguard the American people were eliminated. Salaries for the average individual stagnated, while CEOs grew fat off the increased productivity of the average worker. The infrastructure that had driven American prosperity for 50 years–education, science, roads, schools, ports–was starved for funding and literally allowed to crumble. Trade barriers with China and Japan tumbled even as these nations successfully waged an economic war against us that was designed to drive our manufacturing sector out of existence.

"Why? Why did they do it? Because they hated America?

"No.

"Because they didn’t want to pay an extra nickel a gallon in gas tax. Because they didn’t want to pay a penny more for a new broom. Because they didn’t want to see their 'hard earned tax dollars' going to those 'undeserving poverty rats.' [Sounds like you, Neo]

"That attitude is Reaganism, and that attitude is what got us in this mess. We are only reaping the harvest of seeds sown 30 years ago and tended to by Reagan, Bush, Clinton and George W. Bush."

zeus80

July 2, 2009 - 7:08 pm EDT

neocon, you seem to be such a prolific writer ---- of nonsense! Yes?

zeus80

July 2, 2009 - 9:20 pm EDT

Please calm down, neocon. I didn't mean to upset you -- very much!

zeus80

July 2, 2009 - 9:36 pm EDT

BTW neocon, you speak like you have been havin' a BUD, bud. Sorry, I'm just tryin' to be punny, and lighten your spirits for the holiday! Forgive me, please.

neocon

July 2, 2009 - 10:35 pm EDT

No, haven't had a Bud. Don't drink. I just find it annoying that the first time you speak to me it's in the typical snarky tone that is the norm for liberals who hold themselves up as the picture of tolerance, but is anything but. I'm neither impressed nor intimidated your adolescent comments, they are expected from the leftists.

Every time I encounter a liberal such as yourself who looks down their long, snooty nose at someone and tries to belittle them because they won't chug the snake oil put out by the likes of Krugman, I am again reminded of why I abandoned that flawed ideology long ago.

IMO, modern liberalism is a mental disorder, brought about by a lack of self confidence and a lack of confidence in others. They are nanny staters who, when pressed to present their case for liberalism, point to a laundry list of government programs that have accomplished nothing but promote dependency on the state. Anything beyond that is the usual insults to those that disagree.

zeus80

July 2, 2009 - 9:38 pm EDT

Careful now, neocon, they ban bad boys on this site. danagain said so.

neocon

July 2, 2009 - 10:41 pm EDT

I see you've had some success in getting me censored.

Huz

pah

for you.

Rufus_T.Firefly

July 2, 2009 - 9:25 am EDT

"That's the problem with weekly columns, not everyone takes your rants seriously and some may even say that you never met a conservative that you didn't hate"

Imagine a President that doubled the national debt.
Imagine a President that is held up as a conservative Icon.
Imagine they are one in the same.

Conservative is just the team name. Means nothing beyond that.

hbherman

July 2, 2009 - 7:49 am EDT

"Following another 1 percent contraction in U.S. manufacturing last month, the current recession is now officially the worst since 1945 (when output collapsed amid the post-war demobilisation). It has edged out the previous-worst recession in 1973 to claim first place in the post-war hall of infamy."
http://in.reuters.com/article/economicNews/idINIndia-40415520090618
It ain't over 'till it's over.
Harvey

tledford

July 2, 2009 - 3:49 pm EDT

Apparently the writer is unaware that deficit and debt are two different things.

What Krugman is stating is fact, just stated verbosely. What started under Ronnie Raygun *is* what got us where we are, and is where the Republican party abandoned its record of fiscal conservatism and embraced "cut taxes and increase spending" as a means of accomplishing two things:

1. Line the pockets of their cronies by having the government spend money with companies owned by the cronies and
2. Starve the federal government to death by running up deficits AND debt until unsupportable, thereby reducing the size of government until (as Grover Norquist said) "it's small enough to drown in a bathtub."

Republicans are all for deficit spending as long as they're benefiting from it. Once someone they look down upon or hate for whatever reason gets anything whatsoever out of deficit spending, it becomes an evil thing to be despised.

Hypocrisy in the most classic sense.

zeus80

July 2, 2009 - 6:59 pm EDT

Mr. Sperko, you write an interesting letter. But if you don't mind, I'll accept as a little more knowlegeable the comments of a Nobel Prize recipient. Also, I must admit that I believe President Reagan "poisoned the well," so to speak, when he said words to the effect that it was patriotic to avoid paying taxes. And political hacks have been getting votes that way ever since. And, lastly, it's too bad George W. didn't listen to his father who correctly identified the Reagan approach as "Voodoo Economics!" Are you planning to run for elective office?

zeus80

July 2, 2009 - 9:26 pm EDT

tledford, I believe your comment "hits the nail on the heard!" Directly on the head!

catfish

July 3, 2009 - 4:00 am EDT

Forget Strunk & White, Neo is me hee-ro!!! Back at you Mr Neocon:

IMO, modern conservatism is a mental disorder, brought about by a lack of reason, and a lack of empathy toward others. Conservatives are authoritarian ideologues who, when pressed to present their case for unfettered capitalism and social conservatism, point to a history of tax cuts and government neglect that have accomplished nothing but the comforting of the powerful and supremacy of the war state.

catfish

July 3, 2009 - 4:02 am EDT

And let's not forget, there were more federal employees after Reagan got out than when he got in!

neocon

July 3, 2009 - 6:18 am EDT

"lack of empathy toward others" ..."tax cuts"..."government neglect"...

Thanks for making my point better than I ever could!
LOL x 100

neocon

July 3, 2009 - 6:29 am EDT

BTW, catfish, how's that "empathy" workin' out for ya in places like Detroit, New Orleans, and east Greensboro? All they need is a little more of that government "empaty" (read as other people's $) right?.....riiiiiight.

You so sweet.

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

Triad Weather

  • Current Condition: FAIR
  • Current Temperature: 43°
  • UV Idx: 0
  • Forecast High/Low: H: 0° L: 37°

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search