An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right

The Second Great Contraction

The American economist, Kenneth Rogoff, suggested this week that we stop referring to our present economic woes as The Great Recession, and instead label the present situation The Second Great Contraction. The first Great Contraction occurred in the 1930′s. The same thing is happening again.

The problem with our present terminology, Rogoff writes, is that it assumes that our present situation is just another — somewhat tougher — garden variety recession, a notion which “is predicated on a dangerous misdiagnosis of the problems that confront the United States and other countries, leading to bad forecasts and bad policy.”

The market gyrations of the past week were certainly a reaction to bad forecasting. The debt deal which was reached in Washington is an egregious example of bad policy. The real problem, Rogoff maintains, is that policy makers have not truly understood how bad the situation is:

The real problem is that the global economy is badly overleveraged, and there’s no quick escape without a scheme to transfer wealth from creditors to debtors, either through defaults, financial repression or inflation.

During the First Great Contraction, Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal transferred wealth from creditors to debtors. Economists like Paul Krugman and Robert Reich argue that the same kind of response is required now. They argue for a new Works Progress Administration and a new Civilian Conservation Corps. The need for infrastructure improvement is everywhere — from bridges that fall into the Mississippi River to huge slabs of concrete which fall onto Montreal’s freeways. We live in an age — in John Kenneth Galbraith’s phrase — of “private wealth and public squalor.”

But what the debt ceiling debate underscored (yet again) was our political and power elites’ absolute failure to come to grips with the real problem. And, until they change or are replaced, there will be no large scale public works programs.

In the light of that failure, Rogoff asks, “Is there any alternative to years of political gyrations and alternatives?” — and then he answers his own question:

I have argued that the only practical way to shorten the coming period of deleveraging and slow growth would be a sustained burst of moderate inflation, say, 4 per cent to 6 per cent for several years. Of course, inflation is an unfair and arbitrary transfer of income from savers to debtors. But such a transfer is the most direct approach to faster recovery. Eventually, it will take place one way or another, as Europe is painfully learning.

Rogoff’s suggestion will drive lots of policy makers crazy — because it’s difficult to keep inflation “moderate.” But, at the moment, those who hold the reins of power are not listening to Krugman, Reich or Rogoff. And, in the meantime, wealth remains in the hands of the creditors and hope drains away from the debtors.


Owen Gray grew up in Montreal, where he received a B. A. from Concordia University. After crossing the border and completing a Master’s degree at the University of North Carolina, he returned to Canada, married, raised a family and taught high school for 32 years. Now retired, he lives — with his wife and youngest son — on the northern shores of Lake Ontario. This post is cross posted from his blog.



4 Responses to “The Second Great Contraction”

  1. Barky says:

    Stop the pretension, we are in a depression, all the mathematical & statistical “rules” notwithstanding.

    The definitions of these terms need to change to fit the true socioeconomic realities of the world.

  2. DLS says:

    Well, it would be even easier to say “contraction” or “depression” were we not recovering (pathetically) and more importantly, had there been more deflation, to where we would experience what Japan did in the 1990s onward.

    (Note that their population is more aged than ours, in addition to having different cultural details; were we to experience this 2008-9 slump around, say, 2025, or worse, 2035, it would be much worse.)

  3. ProfElwood says:

    This is a guy that I have a lot of respect for, and I don’t disagree with his analysis.

    I disagree with Mr. Grey.

    FDR’s programs were an option in the 1930s, because the government wasn’t one of the big debtors. Right now, when the government spends large amounts of money, it too is simply borrowing to pay off others’ debt. That’s not changing the amount of debt, or even who effectively owns it, only the debtor.

    Inflation is a type of default, and so is direct default. I believe Ragoff is suggesting inflation, only because it can be done relatively slowly, which would decrease the shock damage.

    The way inflation is created in this country, the money created still goes to the banks first, many of whom are also over leveraged, so they tend to keep it instead of providing venture capital or business loans. That’s why I thought the “platinum coin” solution sounded a whole lot better than QE2. The coins would be inflation without expanding credit. I’m sure the Fed would fight that with all its might.

    Yes, make-work projects could help. I don’t know if they’re even possible though, given that the unions wouldn’t want to compete with the unemployed, and unless the “platinum coin” solution were employed, would still increase credit.

  4. DLS says:

    Well, inflation is the handy way to monetize debt (and to pay for additional spending — Krugman’s desire for inflation is no surprise).

© 2003-2011 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Mode Equity