Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Ask Doctor Dollar: Why Aren't Things Getting Better?

By Arthur MacEwan, Dollars and Sense. Posted April 7, 2009.


Many fail to take sufficient account of the time lapses between one event and another.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Dear Dr. Dollar:

I learned in my economics classes that in a market economy, problems tend to be self-correcting: when a recession starts, demand weakens; then prices drop, people and firms start to buy more and the economy picks up again. So why don’t we see this kind of self-correction now? Why does it seem as if things are getting worse and worse?
—Corina Chio, Los Angeles, Calif.

Life, it turns out, is more complicated than the way it is presented in many economics classes. “More complicated” means different.

One of the key differences between reality and the standard fare of some economics classes is that the standard fare does not take sufficient account of the time lapses between one event and another. These time lapses don’t simply mean that adjustments take longer; they mean that the nature of those adjustments can be very different from what one learns in class.

When demand weakens, prices do tend to drop, but they don’t drop immediately. So, for example, when demand weakens and people buy fewer cars, candy, cardigans, and computers, the prices of these goods don’t fall right away. But, facing the fall-off in purchases, the firms that make these products cut back on production and lay off workers. So demand falls further because the unemployed have less money to buy all these products. In this situation, things can get worse and worse instead of being turned around by the falling prices. Which way things go is not automatic, but depends on the seriousness of the initial fall-off in demand and the speed with which that fall-off occurs.

A further problem with the simplistic analysis presented in some classes is that people’s buying decisions are based on expectations about the future as well as on current prices. If auto dealers try to get me to buy a new car by lowering the price, I am not likely to respond positively if I think I may well lose my job soon and be unable to make the monthly payments. And if my main use for a car is to get to and from work, my expectation of lack of work will make me even less likely to buy a new car regardless of the price.

Firms behave similarly. Why should a firm hire more labor or invest in new plants and equipment if the firm expects that people will be cutting back on demand for the firm’s products? Even if interest rates and the prices of labor and raw materials are all falling, firms are unlikely to expand operations if they do not think the demand will be there. Indeed, it is precisely the falling prices that signal to firms that a recession is developing—which means that demand will not be there.

Worse: as prices fall, both consumers and firms are likely to delay purchases, expecting that things will be even cheaper if they wait. But by waiting (i.e., by not spending) they create even more downward pressure. So falling prices (deflation) can make things worse, not better.

And even worse still: because consumers and firms act quite rationally in this manner—cutting back expenditures because they expect things to get worse—things do get worse! When each firm and consumer acts rationally in response to negative expectations, as a group they tend to insure that those negative expectations will become reality. Individual rationality and social rationality come in conflict with one another. This phenomenon is often referred to as “the paradox of thrift.” People respond to the situation by being thrifty, doing what is good for them individually. But the outcome for society as a whole is bad. Under these circumstances, there is a need for collective action—that is, government action.

This collective action—this government action—will be most effective when it takes the form of deficit spending. And this is exactly what is meant when people talk about a “stimulus package.” By engaging in deficit spending the government is increasing demand more by its spending than it is reducing demand through taxes. The difference is made up by borrowing, and the “stimulus” is greatest when the borrowed money would not have been spent—and it would not have been spent precisely because the private firms and individuals who have the money (the money the government is borrowing) also have poor expectations about the future.

Not every economic downturn gets worse and worse. There can be a process of self-correction. But when a serious downturn develops—as is the case right now—self-correction is not going to solve our problems. The collective action that we can take through government is essential to avoid economic disaster.


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

See more stories tagged with: economic crisis, doctor dollar

Arthur MacEwan is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts Boston and a Dollars & Sense Associate.

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:
Article nails Keynes' Critique of the highly simplistic nature of Neo-Classical economic doctrine...
Posted by: yellow on Apr 7, 2009 4:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Neo-classical doctrine sees competitive capitalist economies quickly adjusting through the price mechanism; a fall in demand leads to a fall in prices to clear markets, equilibriate the economy and restart business investment, full employment, consumer spending and economic growth. The trouble is that reality is very different.

In the first place, prices are not set by the market but rather by a cost plus formula used by a corporate oligopoly that calculates prices by fixed unit costs plus a necessary rate of profit. One firm is usually the price leader whom the others follow; large capitalist firms are not price takers but price makers. This is why prices have always trended upward except under depression conditions in which deflation indicates a crisis period restructuring of the whole economy. Under such conditions, the highest net worth individuals along with the richest firms wait for asset prices to fall so as to concentrate the economy at fire sale prices. This concentrates wealth and income and causes further stagnation as the whole economy cycles toward "recovery." Such "recoveries" may take years with labor market recovery taking even longer.

One reason recoveries happen this way is, as the article says, that consumers are reluctant to spend money because of job and income insecurity. Sensing this, businesses cut back investment, hiring and business expansion. This worsens expectations. As a result the economy spirals downward until a recession lowers asset prices to the point that ultimately a desparite sell off leads to further economic concentration. Chronic stagnation, is the ultimate consequence.

The role of government spending and public investment to sustain full employment is key to preventing this scenario. Late capitalism doesn't re-equilibriate itself, even in the long term, at former levels of real output growth much less at full employment. Only regular public sector investment can prevent patterns of late capitalist stagnation due to income concentration and a lack of profitable investment outlets due to low effective consumer demand.

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

  • 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