Paul Krugman: "On the Edge"

Barack Obama, D.C., Economy, Federal Reserve, Finance, GOP, Larry Summers, Media, Paul Krugman, Politics, Republicans, Stimulus Bill, Tim Geithner
February 6, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
On the Edge

A not-so-funny thing happened on the way to economic recovery. Over the last two weeks, what should have been a deadly serious debate about how to save an economy in desperate straits turned, instead, into hackneyed political theater, with Republicans spouting all the old clichés about wasteful government spending and the wonders of tax cuts.

It’s as if the dismal economic failure of the last eight years never happened — yet Democrats have, incredibly, been on the defensive. Even if a major stimulus bill does pass the Senate, there’s a real risk that important parts of the original plan, especially aid to state and local governments, will have been emasculated.

Somehow, Washington has lost any sense of what’s at stake — of the reality that we may well be falling into an economic abyss, and that if we do, it will be very hard to get out again.

It’s hard to exaggerate how much economic trouble we’re in. The crisis began with housing, but the implosion of the Bush-era housing bubble has set economic dominoes falling not just in the United States, but around the world.

Consumers, their wealth decimated and their optimism shattered by collapsing home prices and a sliding stock market, have cut back their spending and sharply increased their saving — a good thing in the long run, but a huge blow to the economy right now. Developers of commercial real estate, watching rents fall and financing costs soar, are slashing their investment plans. Businesses are canceling plans to expand capacity, since they aren’t selling enough to use the capacity they have. And exports, which were one of the U.S. economy’s few areas of strength over the past couple of years, are now plunging as the financial crisis hits our trading partners.

Meanwhile, our main line of defense against recessions — the Federal Reserve’s usual ability to support the economy by cutting interest rates — has already been overrun. The Fed has cut the rates it controls basically to zero, yet the economy is still in free fall.

It’s no wonder, then, that most economic forecasts warn that in the absence of government action we’re headed for a deep, prolonged slump. Some private analysts predict double-digit unemployment. The Congressional Budget Office is slightly more sanguine, but its director, nonetheless, recently warned that “absent a change in fiscal policy … the shortfall in the nation’s output relative to potential levels will be the largest — in duration and depth — since the Depression of the 1930s.”

Worst of all is the possibility that the economy will, as it did in the ’30s, end up stuck in a prolonged deflationary trap.

We’re already closer to outright deflation than at any point since the Great Depression. In particular, the private sector is experiencing widespread wage cuts for the first time since the 1930s, and there will be much more of that if the economy continues to weaken.

As the great American economist Irving Fisher pointed out almost 80 years ago, deflation, once started, tends to feed on itself. As dollar incomes fall in the face of a depressed economy, the burden of debt becomes harder to bear, while the expectation of further price declines discourages investment spending. These effects of deflation depress the economy further, which leads to more deflation, and so on.

And deflationary traps can go on for a long time. Japan experienced a “lost decade” of deflation and stagnation in the 1990s — and the only thing that let Japan escape from its trap was a global boom that boosted the nation’s exports. Who will rescue America from a similar trap now that the whole world is slumping at the same time?

Would the Obama economic plan, if enacted, ensure that America won’t have its own lost decade? Not necessarily: a number of economists, myself included, think the plan falls short and should be substantially bigger. But the Obama plan would certainly improve our odds. And that’s why the efforts of Republicans to make the plan smaller and less effective — to turn it into little more than another round of Bush-style tax cuts — are so destructive.

So what should Mr. Obama do? Count me among those who think that the president made a big mistake in his initial approach, that his attempts to transcend partisanship ended up empowering politicians who take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. What matters now, however, is what he does next.

It’s time for Mr. Obama to go on the offensive. Above all, he must not shy away from pointing out that those who stand in the way of his plan, in the name of a discredited economic philosophy, are putting the nation’s future at risk. The American economy is on the edge of catastrophe, and much of the Republican Party is trying to push it over that edge.

Numerous Myths and Falsehoods Advanced by the Media in Their Coverage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Banking, Beltway Groupthink, D.C., Finance, GOP, Infrastructure, Jobs, Media, Media Matters, Politics, Propaganda, Republicans, Stimulus Bill

dogchapmansp

Media Matters for America previously identified numerous myths and falsehoods advanced by the media in their coverage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. As debate on the bill continues in Congress, other myths and falsehoods advanced by the media about the recovery package have risen to prominence. These myths and falsehoods include: the assertion that the bill will not stimulate the economy — including the false assertion that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said the bill will not stimulate the economy; that spending in the bill is not stimulus; that there is no reason for stimulus after an economic turnaround begins; that corporate tax rate cuts and capital gains tax rate cuts would provide substantial stimulus; and that undocumented immigrants without Social Security numbers could receive the “Making Work Pay” tax credit provided in the bill.

1. The bill will not stimulate the economy

In a February 1 article, The Associated Press reported an assertion by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) that the recovery bill will not stimulate the economy without noting that the CBO disagrees. ABC World News anchor Charles Gibson echoed this assertion during his February 3 interview with President Obama, stating: “And as you know, there’s a lot of people in the public, a lot of members of Congress who think this is pork-stuffed and that it really doesn’t stimulate.” Additionally, on the January 28 edition of his show, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh allowed Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) to falsely claim of the bill: “Even the Congressional Budget Office, controlled by the Democrats now, says it is not a stimulative bill.” Fox News host Sean Hannity repeated this claim on the February 2 broadcast of Fox News’ Hannity, asserting that the CBO “say[s] it’s not a stimulus bill.”

In fact, in analyzing the House version of the bill, H.R. 1, and the proposed Senate version, the CBO stated that it expects both measures to “have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years.” Additionally, in his January 27 written testimony before the House Budget Committee, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said that H.R. 1 would “provide massive fiscal stimulus that includes a combination of government spending increases and revenue reductions.” Elmendorf further stated: “In CBO’s judgment, H.R. 1 would provide a substantial boost to economic activity over the next several years relative to what would occur without any legislation.”

2. Government spending in the bill is not stimulus

Several media figures, including CNN correspondent Carol Costello, CBS Evening News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, and ABC World News anchor Charles Gibson, have all uncritically reported or aired the Republican claim that, in Gibson’s words, “it’s a spending bill and not a stimulus,” without noting that economists have said that government spending is stimulus. Indeed, in his January 27 testimony, Elmendorf explicitly refuted the suggestion that some of the spending provisions in the bill would not have a stimulative effect, stating: “[I]n our estimation — and I think the estimation of most economists — all of the increase in government spending and all of the reduction in tax revenue provides some stimulative effect. People are put to work, receive income, spend that on something else. That puts somebody else to work.” Additionally, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, has said, “[S]pending is stimulus. Any spending will generate jobs. It is that simple.”

3. There is no reason for stimulus after a turnaround begins

Congresswoman Wants To Bring Fairness Doctrine To Cable; Hannity/Hume Spontaneously Combust

Brit Hume, Cable, Chris Wallace, Douchebags, Fairness Doctrine, FOX News, Media, Politics, Radio, Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch, Sean Hannity, Television

San Francisco Peninsula Press Club

eshoo

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo,  D-Palo Alto, said Monday she will work to restore the Fairness Doctrine and have it apply to cable and satellite programming as well as radio and TV.

“I’ll work on bringing it back. I still believe in it,” Eshoo told the Daily Post in Palo Alto.

The Fairness Doctrine required TV and radio stations to balance opposing points of view. It meant that those who disagreed with the political slant of a commentator were entitled to free air time to give contrasting points of view, usually in the same time slot as the original broadcast.

The doctrine was repealed by the Reagan administration’s Federal Communications Commission in 1987, and a year later, Rush Limbaugh’s show went national, ushering in a new form of AM radio.

Conservative talk show hosts fear the doctrine will result in their programs being canceled because stations don’t want to offer large amounts of air time to opponents whose response programs probably wouldn’t get good ratings.

Eshoo said she would recommend the doctrine be applied not only to radio and TV broadcasts, but also to cable and satellite services.

“It should and will affect everyone,” she said.

She called the present system “unfair,” and said “there should be equal time for the spoken word.” (Photo credit: Ian Port, Daily Post)

Tough Times Complicate the Case for Buying Super Bowl Ads

Advertising, Media, Superbowl

With advertising rates for the Super Bowl running as high as $3 million for a 30-second spot, some marketers are wondering whether during these tough economic times they can afford the big game.

[Chart]

FedEx, a loyal Super Bowl advertiser, still hasn’t decided if it will buy in. FedEx is concerned that shelling out big bucks — at a time when it’s “asking employees to do more with less” — will look “wrong,” says a person close to the company.

“Companies have to be mindful that jumping into the game can open them up to criticism,” this person says.

The Memphis, Tenn., package-delivery giant is holding out to see if it can get a bargain.

FedEx’s hesitation is raising eyebrows on Madison Avenue because it has advertised in 12 of the past National Football League championship games.

The company is also one of those that get extra mileage out of the game because its spots tend to be entertaining, and are widely anticipated. During the last Super Bowl, one FedEx ad featured an enormous carrier pigeon wreaking havoc in a city.

Advertisers taking a pass on Super Bowl XLIII altogether include beleaguered General Motors, which has been in 16 games, and Garmin Ltd., the maker of GPS devices, which had advertised in the past two games. A company spokesman for Garmin says its decision to sit out was “unrelated to the economy.”

Jumping into high-priced media deals can raise lots of image questions, say ad executives.

“With this much money on the line it can be a negative reflection on a company, especially if they are cutting back staff or getting a government bailout,” says Steve Lanzano, chief operating officer at MPG North America, a media-buying unit owned by Havas.

General Electric‘s NBC had sold most of its Super Bowl ad inventory by early September, prior to the meltdown on Wall Street. Because the economy had been soft for most of the year, many in the industry were surprised by the brisk pace of sales. Advertisers gobbled up the available slots even though NBC raised its price sharply, compared with the previous Super Bowl, for which News Corp.‘s Fox got about $2.7 million for 30 seconds of commercial time. (Advertisers who buy multiple slots and fourth-quarter space typically get discounts).

NBC is in better shape than Fox was during the past recession. In 2002, Fox, whose parent also publishes The Wall Street Journal, had about 10% of its ad time unsold just two weeks before the game.

NBC seems to have experienced some slowing of demand over the past few weeks. It says it now has about eight ad slots left to fill. That’s roughly the same number that were left in September.

The Super Bowl has shown no signs of flagging in the ratings. This year’s nail-biter between the New York Giants and the New England Patriots drew 97.4 million viewers, the biggest TV audience for a U.S. sporting event.

Ads appearing in the game seem to get more advance publicity every year, helping to offset the price tag.

Advertisers on next year’s broadcast include Anheuser-Busch, CareerBuilder.com, Hyundai Motor, PepsiCo, Viacom‘s Paramount Pictures, Cars.com and Coca-Cola.

The peacock network has also lured some new marketers to the Feb. 1 game in Tampa, including Pedigree, the dog-food brand owned by Mars. Even Monster.com, the online job site owned by Monster Worldwide, is currently in talks to jump back into the game after sitting out the past few years, according to people familiar with the matter.

“As of now, we have not committed to the Super Bowl,” says a spokesman for Monster.

“Companies realize that it’s even more important in a challenging economy to deliver their message in front of the largest audience they’ll see all year,” says a spokesman for NBC.

Still, marketers and ad executives say it is a tough call to make during hard times. E*Trade Financial knows exactly how nerve-racking the Super Bowl decision can be.

This past February, the New York company jumped into the game even though its stock price had plummeted more than 80% over the course of the year; the word “bankruptcy” was floated by analysts. Some consumers were pulling their accounts from the online broker.

“There were some people internally who said, ‘is this wise?'” says Nick Utton, chief marketing officer of E*Trade. Mr. Utton says he decided to do Super Bowl ads because he felt that it would ultimately show confidence in the brand.

But executives crossed their fingers: if the campaign wasn’t well-received, the criticisms wouldn’t be limited to “lackluster creative.” They would be about “irresponsible corporate spending.”

Luckily for E*Trade, its ads got a favorable reception, resulting in a 32% increase in newly opened and funded brokerage accounts during the week following the Super Bowl, the company said. And even though it is still hurting, it says it will be returning to the game. E*Trade is tightlipped on what the ads will look like, but it’s likely its talking baby will be back.

Write to Suzanne Vranica at suzanne.vranica@wsj.com