Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Uh Oh, the American Consumer Has Raised the White Flag

By Paul Krugman, The New York Times. Posted October 31, 2008.


The capitulation of the American consumer is coming at a particularly bad time. But it's no use whining. What we need is a solution.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Paul Krugman

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The long-feared capitulation of American consumers has arrived. According to Thursday's G.D.P. report, real consumer spending fell at an annual rate of 3.1 percent in the third quarter; real spending on durable goods (stuff like cars and TVs) fell at an annual rate of 14 percent.

To appreciate the significance of these numbers, you need to know that American consumers almost never cut spending. Consumer demand kept rising right through the 2001 recession; the last time it fell even for a single quarter was in 1991, and there hasn't been a decline this steep since 1980, when the economy was suffering from a severe recession combined with double-digit inflation.

Also, these numbers are from the third quarter -- the months of July, August, and September. So these data are basically telling us what happened before confidence collapsed after the fall of Lehman Brothers in mid-September, not to mention before the Dow plunged below 10,000. Nor do the data show the full effects of the sharp cutback in the availability of consumer credit, which is still under way.

So this looks like the beginning of a very big change in consumer behavior. And it couldn't have come at a worse time.

It's true that American consumers have long been living beyond their means. In the mid-1980s Americans saved about 10 percent of their income. Lately, however, the savings rate has generally been below 2 percent -- sometimes it has even been negative -- and consumer debt has risen to 98 percent of G.D.P., twice its level a quarter-century ago.

Some economists told us not to worry because Americans were offsetting their growing debt with the ever-rising values of their homes and stock portfolios. Somehow, though, we're not hearing that argument much lately. Sooner or later, then, consumers were going to have to pull in their belts. But the timing of the new sobriety is deeply unfortunate. One is tempted to echo St. Augustine's plea: "Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet." For consumers are cutting back just as the U.S. economy has fallen into a liquidity trap -- a situation in which the Federal Reserve has lost its grip on the economy.

Some background: one of the high points of the semester, if you're a teacher of introductory macroeconomics, comes when you explain how individual virtue can be public vice, how attempts by consumers to do the right thing by saving more can leave everyone worse off. The point is that if consumers cut their spending, and nothing else takes the place of that spending, the economy will slide into a recession, reducing everyone's income. In fact, consumers' income may actually fall more than their spending, so that their attempt to save more backfires -- a possibility known as the paradox of thrift.

At this point, however, the instructor hastens to explain that virtue isn't really vice: in practice, if consumers were to cut back, the Fed would respond by slashing interest rates, which would help the economy avoid recession and lead to a rise in investment. So virtue is virtue after all, unless for some reason the Fed can't offset the fall in consumer spending.

I'll bet you can guess what's coming next.

For the fact is that we are in a liquidity trap right now: Fed policy has lost most of its traction. It's true that Ben Bernanke hasn't yet reduced interest rates all the way to zero, as the Japanese did in the 1990s. But it's hard to believe that cutting the federal funds rate from 1 percent to nothing would have much positive effect on the economy. In particular, the financial crisis has made Fed policy largely irrelevant for much of the private sector: The Fed has been steadily cutting away, yet mortgage rates and the interest rates many businesses pay are higher than they were early this year.

The capitulation of the American consumer, then, is coming at a particularly bad time. But it's no use whining. What we need is a policy response.

The ongoing efforts to bail out the financial system, even if they work, won't do more than slightly mitigate the problem. Maybe some consumers will be able to keep their credit cards, but as we've seen, Americans were overextended even before banks started cutting them off.

No, what the economy needs now is something to take the place of retrenching consumers. That means a major fiscal stimulus. And this time the stimulus should take the form of actual government spending rather than rebate checks that consumers probably wouldn't spend.

Let's hope, then, that Congress gets to work on a package to rescue the economy as soon as the election is behind us. And let's also hope that the lame-duck Bush administration doesn't get in the way.

© 2008 The New York Times

AlterNet is making this material available in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: spending, consumer

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Simple : Medicare for All ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Oct 31, 2008 12:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This will re-capitalize business, especially manufacturing, stop local, state and federal layoffs while any extra funds can be mandated to make unemployment and pension funds whole.

This will re-capitalize small business and the self employed.

This will take care of the under and uninsured so that they no longer fear bankruptcy from medical bills.

Medicare for All is the answer to the fall of consumer spending.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Simple : Medicare for All ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Oct 31, 2008 12:28 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This will re-capitalize business, especially manufacturing, stop local, state and federal layoffs while any extra funds can be mandated to make unemployment and pension funds whole.

This will re-capitalize small business and the self employed.

This will take care of the under and uninsured so that they no longer fear bankruptcy from medical bills.

Medicare for All is the answer to the fall of consumer spending.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» sorry for the double post ! Posted by: mmckinl
I quess what I have always questioned..
Posted by: Farmertim on Oct 31, 2008 12:50 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
about our current ability to create an economy out of buying "stuff" is that once you've been there, done that ...then what.
How many former GM employees do I need bidding to cut my lawn, when to save my own cash to put food on the table I have to send them down the street.
Economic stimulus is a long way off.
We don't have a manufacturing base to start with and have all but disassembled any real econmomically sound way of moving "whats left" of our resources to build anything that would create jobs.
Most of our equipment used last time to "stimulate" anything is now over seas and I doubt it will be brought back anytime soon.
Nor should it be that form of stimulas is outdated.
We need a serious discussion of our countries role in the world and the fact that buying overseas lawn orniments that need to be replaced every year on credit is a sound economic engine, or for that fact a good neighbor policy given we are asking them to assume the risk of buying into our credit debt, as well as trashing their environment to do so.
As most I know are saying..what financial crisis, the boys on Wall Street now know what we have been dealing with for 6 years."
Wonder how many lawns it takes to make up for the lost income the 120,000 laid off Wall Street workers are no longer earning?
Welcome to the real america....
Farmer Tim

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How to re-inject liquidity into the domestic market:
Posted by: gunboat diplomat on Oct 31, 2008 1:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Support domestic agricultural and industrial job creation programs.

The first thing to do is to review all U.S. trade agreements with our major partners, and politely ask them to move some large percentage of their manufacturing plants to the U.S. That's what Toyota did in Alabama in 2005. Quote: "The automobile industry in America is not dying - it is just changing hands."

They would have to pay more for labor in the U.S., and that would be the tradeoff - but that is something the government could do. As an aside, the one manufacturing area that hasn't been outsourced to any degree is weapons production. Maybe we should subcontract ballistic nuclear missile warhead assembly to China? or India? or Indonesia? We already shipped the fuses to Taiwan, didn't we then... yes... the fear is real...

The second thing the president should do is to review agreements that allow dumping of U.S.-subsidized agricultural products on the markets of poor countries. Instead, we need a different overall agricultural strategy.

First, that export corn and soy should instead be fed into biofuel production to help meet domestic energy markets. Second, we should be helping Third World countries be self-sufficient in food production, meaning aid in the form of solar panels, electric tractors, water pumps, etc. - and also meaning no more dumping corn. Third, this approach reduces the economic refugee problem. To displaced Mexican farmers, $10 a day seems like a gold mine at first - and that's a good chunk of the migrant agricultural labor in the U.S. Fourth, high amounts of economic refugees allow drug and weapon and money smugglers to hide more easily in the crowds. Fifth, this allows Third World countries to avoid being dependent on a wildly fluctuating global economy for their basic daily needs. That means they might actually be able to buy things like laptops, TVs, etc. from U.S. manufacturers.

This will all mean higher labor costs for U.S. corporations - but maybe if you are making more money, then maybe you can afford to pay your employees $20 an hour. Higher labor costs for U.S. corporations, in other words, are exactly what are needed.

Killing that goose that laid the golden eggs - that’s one way of looking at the globalization of labor over the past couple of decades. Wall Street shareholders who relied on consumer spending for their dividends and the CEOs they elected to manage their corporations thought they could increase their profits even more by outsourcing their labor to China, etc. They seem to have forgotten that their consumers and their labor force, overall, were mostly the same people.

The GDP kept going up for a while, but that was only because the debt load increased for people who had their basic income reduced - and these people then turned more to credit cards, student loans, second mortgages, etc. to finance their lifestyles. That meant more and more wealth accumulated in the hands of billionaires - but the GDP doesn't distinguish between slavery and freedom, does it? As a result, we’re one step further along the path to an aristocrat-peasant feudal society.

This has been a deliberate U.S. policy for several decades now - to use foreign policy and trade agreements to aid in the upward redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the billionaire class. That’s the real “redistribution of wealth” issue.

As history shows, when societies become very unequal, they tend to suffer internal collapse - and that's reflected in the current economic contraction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well, GOOD. Maybe soon, Americans will stop laughing at and persecuting the FRUGALS !
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 31, 2008 2:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Capitalism cannot succeed when the energy cost equals
Posted by: l_double_e on Oct 31, 2008 2:24 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the cost of the item. One of the reasons capitalism has succeeded for the last fifty years is because energy costs were miniscule; gas was cheap, electricity was cheap, heating oil was cheap. Now that is not the case. There was a time when a lot of products were produced close to where they were consumed. Now products require huge energy expenditures just to get them to market. The future economy is in green energy production. Jobs will be produced by wind farms, solar farms, clean coal production plants, recycling plants. We need to find a way to produce ethanol using sea water as it seems there will be an overabundance of this soon, rather than using ever dwindling supplies of potable water. Healthcare needs to be addressed as more and more of the household pie is gobbled up by hospitals,hmos, and insurance companies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Because Amerika is hemorrhaging money out the ass into the War?
Posted by: stellabloo on Oct 31, 2008 4:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't the cost three TRILLION and counting? That is a lot of pensions, my friends - gold-plated ones for friends and family of the GOP.

You think war comes cheap? Hasn't anyone heard of victory gardens and meat rations? Fake tanning lotion to replace silk and nylon stockings? The Henry Ford Hempmobile and the Hemp for Victory training manual? VIETNAM? And you worried about a RECESSION???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My $olution: I $pend Le$$
Posted by: left_libertarian on Oct 31, 2008 5:12 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
LOL. I will fiddle as I watch America Burn!

watching the chickens comin home to roost.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Puh-lease stop calling me a consumer...
Posted by: beijaflor on Oct 31, 2008 5:42 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To be identified solely by my status as a person who buys things, goods and services is stunningly gross. I am, first and foremost, a Citizen!!! When, precisely, did the citizens of this nation receive this crappy definition of who they are??? Anybody else tired of this linguistic drift??? The GNP 'framing' of describing the state of an economy is fictive bs. Three cars? Multiple homes and all the attendent crap that fills them?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

#@%!??! "Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet."
Posted by: elidude420 on Oct 31, 2008 7:41 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was lucky enough to return to school in 2004 instead of declaring medical bankruptcy. My debt has accumulated, yes, but as an investment in my own skills. Meanwhile, the job market has shrunk and inflation-adjusted earning have dropped.

Mr. Krugman incorrectly assumes that irresponsible, reckless spending caused our lopsided debt-to-savings ratio, an assumption that betrays his own elitism, arrogance, and ignorance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More BS from Bernanke’s crony at Princeton… (Krugman)
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps on Oct 31, 2008 8:42 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“It's true that Ben Bernanke hasn't yet reduced interest rates all the way to zero, as the Japanese did in the 1990s. But it's hard to believe that cutting the federal funds rate from 1 percent to nothing would have much positive effect on the economy.”

What’s true is that the private Ponzi farce “Federal Reserve” Corp (never federal, less than NOTHING for reserves) prints monopoly money out of worse than thin air and charges the nation interest on it. That is an unconstitutional (article 1 section 8) criminal bunko con and it is also blatant FASCISM at the merger of state under monopoly corporate power.

The “Federal Reserve” Corp caused the crash at the Great Depression in 1929 as admitted to by Bernanke when he said to fellow ruling class charlatan Milton Friedman “Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.” But the “Fed” did do it again. It did it on behalf of the ruling class and it did it in spades. It caused this crash pumped by Alan “Bubbles” Greenspan, Hank Paulson and Wall Street with the help of people like Krugman who if they did not cheerlead, turned a blind eye and claimed “none of us saw it coming”.

Item: if I saw it coming, beltway insider Krugman is either a complete incompetent or selling a load of bullocks. My money is on the option #2.

Ivy League clowns such as Krugman now need to work overtime to make excuses for their fellow soothsayers and establishment quack double-talkers. Hence, we see Krugman among other economics buffoons point the finger at anyone and anything other than themselves and their corporate paymasters. Meantime shysters like Krugman are either appointed to cushy positions or awarded the Nobel prize (or both). A prize that was never sanctioned or intended for economics by Alfred Nobel in his will.

That is because economics is NOT a science and never has been. It is a political tool of MSM and “education” indoctrination and used as such.

Put another way, it is a handy method of snowing gullible citizens into blind-faith belief that “experts” such as Bernanke, Krugman and Hank Paulson know more than victims of their greedy and mendacious lunacy. Yes, we are programmed to believe these “experts” know what is best for a real let alone honest economy. An economy in the pocket of Organized Corporate Crime Rule that owns it and has owned it for a hundred years.

Well, to anyone that takes establishment soothsayer “experts” at their word or anywhere near it—by now you deserve the consequences.



“Overall, the U.S. economy appears likely to expand at a moderate pace over the second half of 2007, with growth then strengthening a bit in 2008 to a rate close to the economy’s underlying trend. ”
Ben Bernanke (“Fed” chairman at the Semiannual monetary policy report to Congress July 18, 2007)

“Our financial institutions are in a strong financial position, and our economic fundamentals are healthy…”
Hank Paulson (IMF meeting 10/20/07)

“What we have found over the years in the marketplace is that derivatives have been an extraordinarily useful vehicle to transfer risk from those who shouldn’t be taking it to those who are willing to and are capable of doing so…We think it would be a mistake to more deeply regulate.”
Alan Greespan (“Fed” chairman before the Senate Banking Committee 2003)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Americans will spend, if we get leadership to believe in.
Posted by: Sojourner on Oct 31, 2008 9:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I dunno. I've read Krugman enough to realize he can be wrong. But he's been right far more often than wrong. So, if he gets appointed as Secretary of the Treasury, I will trust that taking the risk of investing my paltry sums will be worth it.

The drunken spree of deregulation is over, but we still have the hangover to shake off. Americans will respond to leadership if they give us evidence our leaders are willing to act for the common good.

It won't be a party. Everything's in a shambles. Who Obama can get to work with him will give some indication of the new direction. If enough progressive leaders get elected on Tuesday, it will alter the odds in favor of reform.

If we dig our way out of the deregulation ditch of the last 30 years, it will be nothing less than a political miracle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No easy answer
Posted by: worksg1 on Nov 1, 2008 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to me that debt is at the heart of the crisis. America now has a public and private debt nearly equal to its GDP. We clearly can't repay all this debt. It can be inflated away or repudiated. But however we do it, the days of living beyond our means are history now.

That means Americans will be spending less and saving more. So there won't be another bubble growing any time soon, there will be years of frugal times. Maybe a whole generation.

Lending to people who couldn't repay the loans marked the end of the party. Our consumers are maxed out, and our Asian lenders have figured out the scam. Nobody will buy our CDOs now.

We, and our government, had better get used to this idea and quit trying for a rapid restart of the credit binge that got us into this mess. Better that we accept reality, reduce our expectations, and plan for success in this new landscape.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]