TNR BLOGS

July 05, 2009 | 4:05 PM
July 05, 2009 | 12:13 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:18 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 05, 2009 | 12:02 PM
July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
10.11.2008
Krugman on Obama and The New Deal

Paul Krugman has some very sage advice for Barack Obama today:

F.D.R. wasn’t just reluctant to pursue an all-out fiscal expansion — he was eager to return to conservative budget principles. That eagerness almost destroyed his legacy. After winning a smashing election victory in 1936, the Roosevelt administration cut spending and raised taxes, precipitating an economic relapse that drove the unemployment rate back into double digits and led to a major defeat in the 1938 midterm elections.

What saved the economy, and the New Deal, was the enormous public works project known as World War II, which finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy’s needs.

This history offers important lessons for the incoming administration.

The political lesson is that economic missteps can quickly undermine an electoral mandate. Democrats won big last week — but they won even bigger in 1936, only to see their gains evaporate after the recession of 1937-38. Americans don’t expect instant economic results from the incoming administration, but they do expect results, and Democrats’ euphoria will be short-lived if they don’t deliver an economic recovery.

The economic lesson is the importance of doing enough. F.D.R. thought he was being prudent by reining in his spending plans; in reality, he was taking big risks with the economy and with his legacy. My advice to the Obama people is to figure out how much help they think the economy needs, then add 50 percent. It’s much better, in a depressed economy, to err on the side of too much stimulus than on the side of too little.

The related point I'd make, which I think applies to the way the Bush administration has handled the financial crisis, is that policymakers often deal with unprecedented emergencies by going to the edge of what's acceptable by the standards of the moment, when in fact what's necessary is something well beyond that. The Great Depression demonstrated that you have to set aside existing norms when dealing with something potentially catastrophic, but that, psychologically (and politically), it's really hard to do.

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Monday, November 10, 2008 2:01 PM with 6 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

jhildner said:

So, as FDR might have said, in times like these, Dr. Stimulus needs to replace Dr. Budget.

November 10, 2008 2:51 PM

fougasseu said:

Economic "Shock and Awe"? Sounds right. But also have an oversight plan in place to make sure the money gets spent in the right way. Already there are signs of an Iraq-style bail-out fiasco emerging. Naomi Klein's piece in "Rolling Stone" is really depressing:

www.rollingstone.com/.../the_new_trough

November 10, 2008 3:54 PM

kerFuFFler said:

Spending a lot of money to stimulate the economy will be easier to pay for later if projects are chosen that will truly create future economic benefits that  help offset taxes that must eventually be levied.   Hoover dam has more than payed for itself in the flood relief it provided not to mention the energy it provided.

Alternative energy projects should be at the top of the list along with increased research budgets for the scientific community. Supporting the engineering research that could make us leaders in transportation would be a good bet.   Investing more in education could also pay for itself in the long run. And think  how much devastation might have been prevented by building an adequate levy system around New Orleans?

I hope that legislators will seek to make investments in our economy that keep us technologically in the lead.  Of course, roads and bridges also need some work, but if Congress lazily assembles a bunch of bills that promise little more than filled potholes,  and ignore investing in the longer term projects that offer real opportunity,  we will really hit a wall in the years to come.  

November 10, 2008 4:09 PM

GSpinks said:

I second the sentiment of mr kerfuffle, we can't just print a shit load of money and throw it up in the air, and expect everything to be picturesque when the last bill lands; the distribution of money must be tightly scripted and well executed with an eye towards ROI.

It seems to me that waiting until the ruling kleptocracy has been dispersed before putting money on the table might be the best course of action. This flies in the face of the notion of immediate action, but Obama seems to have a knack for timing.

November 10, 2008 4:22 PM

abrod said:

I agree with kerFuFFler that we need to think expansively about what constitutes infrastructure.  It doesn't have to stop with roads and bridges.  Education is certainly infrastructural, and perhaps broadband access is as well.  Each of them makes a wide array of industries more productive.  I'm less persuaded that alternative-energy projects should be a major part of a new WPA program, however, because price signals are already moving the private sector in that direction (as John McCain might say, the fundamentals supporting a return to high oil prices are strong).  I'd rather see government resources used for things the private sector isn't doing.

November 10, 2008 4:29 PM

kerFuFFler said:

abrod,

I'm not sure there is enough competition in the energy market to give consumers the full benefits of many alternative forms of energy.  There are huge impediments to building big wind farms, dams, geothermal installations, nuclear reactors and the grid that connects all these facilities with the consumers. Like a highway system, we can't afford to have the duplication of facilities that would encourage rigorous competition. While the government may not end up owning or running these projects, they should be very involved in coordinating  the efforts, funding the research, legislating incentive packages and protecting the public's interest.  If we succeed in harnessing a significant amount of our energy form solar, wind, tides, and geothermal energy,initiatives, think how well off we'd be with the carbon monkey off our back.  

November 11, 2008 4:17 PM