Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:04am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:04am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:04am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:04am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:04pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:04am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:04am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:04pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:04pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
Non-Economic Questions of the Day
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
The Stress Test Blind Alley
Apr 24 20098:04am EDT -
Happy Hour
Apr 23 20099:04pm EDT -
Recovery Without Rebalancing
Apr 23 20096:04pm EDT -
The Shape of Your Recession
Apr 23 20095:04pm EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

The Shape of Your Recession
David Wessel uses his column today to outline potential shapes of the recession and recovery. There's V and L (sharp recovery and no recovery, respectively), and then D, which isn't a shape but instead stands for Depression. Why not just use I? Who knows. Noam Scheiber comments:
I've worried before about whether Congress is capable of responding to a financial or economic crisis. The concern is that, partly because the issues involved are so tough to explain, voters will assume any proposed fix is a waste of money (or, worse, a reward to corrupt fat-cats--which, you know, could be true in some cases).Personally, I don't buy it. I think we either get the V (or the U version), or the I. What the complacency argument glosses over is that an L recession involves an unemployment rate hanging around 10% for an extended period of time. That's not as scary as an economy that continues to weaken, but it's pretty darn uncomfortable. If we have really seen no sign of improvement, at all, in labor markets by next spring, Congress will be in serious trouble, and it will be falling over itself to try and avoid it. And don't forget about the Fed which is unlikely to sit on its hands and do nothing for the next twelve months.But Wessel's right: At least a palpable crisis focuses the mind and provides a rationale for aggressive action (albeit one voters and legislators may reject). The stagnation scenario doesn't even give you a compelling rationale. Things are never so bad at any moment that action seems absolutely necessary. Then, the next thing you know, you've frittered away a decade.
So I think a V, or at least a U is the most likely outcome. Second most likely would be a situation in which something else goes badly wrong, sending us on a new downward trajectory. But I don't think growth around 0% is a stable equilibrium.
/contributors/Ryan-Avent






