iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Robert Reich

GET UPDATES FROM Robert Reich
 

How Europe's Double Dip Could Become America's

Posted: 04/25/2012 1:41 pm

Europe is in recession.

Britain's Office for National Statistics confirmed today (Wednesday) that in the first quarter of this year Britain's economy shrank .2 percent, after having contracted .3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2011. (Officially, two quarters of shrinkage make a recession). On Monday Spain officially fell into recession, for the second time in three years. Portugal, Italy, and Greece are already basket cases. It seems highly likely France and Germany are also contracting.

Why should we care? Because a recession in the world's third-largest economy, combined with the current slowdown in the world's second-largest (China), spells trouble for the world's largest.

Remember -- it's a global economy. Money moves across borders at the speed of an electronic impulse. Wall Street banks are enmeshed into a global capital network extending from Frankfurt to Beijing. That means that notwithstanding their efforts to dress up balance sheets, the biggest U.S. banks are more fragile than they've been at any time since 2007.

Meanwhile, goods and services slosh across the globe. If there's not enough demand for them coming from the second and third-largest economies in the world, demand in the U.S. can't possibly make up the difference. That could mean higher unemployment here as well as elsewhere.

What's the problem with Europe? Don't blame it on the so-called "debt crisis." There was no debt crisis in Britain, for example, which is now experiencing its first double-dip recession since the 1970s.

Blame it on austerity economics -- the bizarre view that economic slowdowns are the products of excessive debt, so government should cut spending. Germany's insistence on cutting public budgets has led Europe into a recession swamp.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has led the austerity charge, and other European policy makers who have followed her, have forgotten two critical lessons.

First, that the real issue isn't debt per se but the ratio of the debt to the size of the economy.

In their haste to cut the public debt, Europeans have overlooked the denominator of the equation. By reducing public budgets they've removed a critical source of demand -- at a time when consumers and the private sector are still in the gravitational pull of the Great Recession and can't make up the difference. The obvious result is a massive slowdown that has worsened the ratio of Europe's debt to its total GDP, and is plunging the continent into recession.

A large debt with faster growth is preferable to a smaller debt sitting atop no growth at all. And it's infinitely better than a smaller debt on top of a contracting economy.

The second lesson Merkel and others have overlooked is that the social costs of austerity economics can be huge. It's one thing to cut a government budget when unemployment is low and wages are rising. But if you cut spending during a time of high unemployment and stagnant or declining wages, you're not only causing unemployment to rise even further -- you're also removing the public services and safety nets people depend on, especially when times are tough.

And with high social costs comes political upheaval. On Monday, Netherlands Prime Minister Mark Rutte was forced to resign. U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron is on the ropes. The upcoming election in France is now a tossup -- incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy might well be unseated by Francois Hollande, a Socialist. European fringe parties on the left and the right are gaining ground. Across Europe, record numbers of young people are unemployed -- including many recent college graduates -- and their anger and frustration is adding to the upheaval.

Social and political instability is itself a drag on growth, generating even more uncertainty about the future.

What European policy makers should do is set a target for growth and unemployment -- and continue to increase government spending until those targets are met. Only then should they adopt austerity.

What are the chances that Merkel et al will see the light before Europe plunges into an even deeper recession? Approximately zero.

The danger here for the United States is clear, but there's also a clear lesson. Republicans have become the U.S. party of Angela Merkel, demanding and getting spending cuts at the worst possible time -- and ignoring the economic and social consequences.

Even if the U.S. economy (as well as President Obama's reelection campaign) survives the global slowdown, we're heading for a big dose of austerity economics next January -- when drastic spending cuts are scheduled to kick in, as well as tax increases on the middle class. But the U.S. economy isn't nearly healthy enough to bear this burden.

If nothing is done to reverse course in the interim, we'll be following Europe into a double dip.

Robert Reich, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at Berkeley and former
Secretary of Labor, is the author of Beyond Outrage. His widely-read blog can be found at www.robertreich.org.

 
 
 

Follow Robert Reich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RBReich

FOLLOW BUSINESS
Europe is in recession. Britain's Office for National Statistics confirmed today (Wednesday) that in the first quarter of this year Britain's economy shrank .2 percent, after having contracted .3 per...
Europe is in recession. Britain's Office for National Statistics confirmed today (Wednesday) that in the first quarter of this year Britain's economy shrank .2 percent, after having contracted .3 per...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 602
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (12 total)
12:21 PM on 04/29/2012
What is the problem with Europe? What is the problem with your memory, Mr. Reich. The entire financial crisis schlamazel started in the US and then spilled to the rest of the world. Typically American...blame everyone else first.
10:14 PM on 04/26/2012
So, again, we have the battle between the Austrians and the Keynesians.
---
From Wiki: Milton Friedman considered Ludwig Mises (the founder of the Austrian School) inflexible in his thinking:
The story I remember best happened at the initial Mont Pelerin meeting when he got up and said, "You're all a bunch of socialists."

We were discussing the distribution of income, and whether you should have progressive income taxes. Some of the people there were expressing the view that there could be a justification for it.

Another occasion which is equally telling: Fritz Machlup was a student of Mises's, one of his most faithful disciples. At one of the Mont Pelerin meetings, Machlup gave a talk in which I think he questioned the idea of a gold standard; he came out in favor of floating exchange rates. Mises was so mad he wouldn't speak to Machlup for three years. Some people had to come around and bring them together again. It's hard to understand; you can get some understanding of it by taking into account how people like Mises were persecuted in their lives.[23]
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Alan Lunn
07:22 PM on 04/26/2012
If we forget history, we are bound to repeat it as other comments here have pointed out about the Gilded Age and the supply-side economics that led to the Great Depression. Reagan initiated the third supply-side extremist era, but it was exacerbated by the digital technology that taught the rising megabanks some new tricks. There was a widespread belief on Wall Street and at the Fed that financial innovation would decrease the problems associated with risk and leverage. Couple that myth with total deregulation of the industry by 2005 and the rest, as I said, is history. Government doesn't create all jobs, but it can inject life-giving transitions back to health into economies wrecked by greedy bastards. If we continue pushing hard-right there is a cliff we're headed for. And it's close.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Frederick Bosick
Science and Computer Guy
07:03 PM on 04/26/2012
Does anyone care to recall what happened in Europe the last time there was a Great Recession/Depression?
11:28 AM on 04/27/2012
As pertains to Reich's commentary, your point is?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mytradingrobot
03:32 PM on 04/26/2012
The US GDP has been continually inflated for the last 30+ years by government deficit spending. If you cut out the deficit spending, GDP has to and will drop.

The drop will be higher than the cut in spending - a 10% boost does not come undone with a 10% cut.

This is one of the lies that every politician knows but is unwilling to admit or tell the American people. The reason every bit of spending is essential and why they cannot cut anything at all substantial is they all know (both parties) that the GDP would go off the cliff if they actually "balanced" the budget. This would mean no more re-election.

Since they are most worried about keeping their jobs they will say and do anything to prevent the spending from stopping. Unfortunately math does not care about what they want. Eventually the cuts will happen regardless of who is in office when the spigot dries up. It is not guaranteed that the bond buddies will always be there to purchase debt. When that gets cut off then the cuts will be forced. It is much better to actually have a plan of action rather than wait until a panic. But we all know nothing gets done without a panic situation.
cosmicdart
paragon of paradigms
04:48 PM on 04/26/2012
Squeeze the majority of people enough, and they will ignore the present monetary system and create their own, one that's self-serving to themselves. A government of, by, and for the people has the right to define what money is and how it's used. If those who now define the current monetary system wish to commit suicide through greed and folly, let 'em. Money can always be reinvented by those who need it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:08 PM on 04/26/2012
Maybe we can just use cow pies huh?
10:04 PM on 04/26/2012
Shrinking the economy deliberately in the name of a moral code? This is fanaticism of the worst type and people of this type must be stopped by all means.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mytradingrobot
10:46 PM on 04/26/2012
You completely miss the point. Basic mathematics says you cannot grow debt at 3% when taxes grow at 2% (example, not exact numbers). Those are exponential -Eventually the 3% payment will overtake the entire 2% to the point where 100% of the 2% cannot make the interest payment per year on the 3%.

There is no moral code - either politicians solve the issue or it will be "fixed" for us. "Fixed" means a complete breakdown of the financial system when the govt is unable to issue bonds. Even now, if rates were to raise to historical norms of 5-6% the govt is totally screwed.

What sounds good, what seems nice or what is thought of as fair has no meaning now. Unfortunately most of the social services will get cut. As will the military and other stuff. There is no choice. Tax increases cannot fix the problem without significant cuts. Had the politicians of the last 40 years made different decisions (all of them) perhaps we would be in a different situation.

We can either be proactive and choose the fix or the fix will be thrust upon us very, very quickly and we will have no choice.
03:23 PM on 04/26/2012
I wish I could sum up what Valarie Ramey, Ph.D. Economics, concluded in her January 2012 paper "Government Spending and Private Activity," but she does such a wonderful job in her conclusion. The paper is worth the read (http://weber.ucsd.edu/~vramey/research/NBER_Fiscal.pdf). I have taken her course in the Economics of Public Policy and was amazed at her explanation of how the traditional theory of the multiplier effect of government spending is not reality. She sums up in her paper that "it appears that a rise in government spending does not stimulate private spending; most estimates suggest that it significantly lowers private spending" and increases in employment due to government spending "is from an increase in government employment, not private employment."
cosmicdart
paragon of paradigms
04:28 PM on 04/26/2012
We could employ every unemployed person in the country by forcing them all to be door to door magazine salespeople, but they'd still have to be subsidized by government transfer funds to make up for the shortfall in what each would need to survive. The working poor are fully employed. In fact, it would cost the government less if they did no work at all cuz of the large number of work related accidents, caused by angry door to door house dogs, needing state funded medical care. Not all forms of employment are equal. Government employment pays well. If we get private spending on automation cuz of tax saveings, this creates more unemployment.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:19 PM on 04/26/2012
Dude, put down the bong pipe for awhile because I don't know what your talking about!
08:16 PM on 04/26/2012
All your comments prove is how the field of economics is full of idiot-logue fools who are out of touch with reality. Your hero Valarie Ramey seems blind to what's going on in Europe. Government spending cuts in Europe have cause the private sector to contract. Ramey seems ignorant aqbout American history. Government spending jump-started the economy in the 1940s and 1950s, during which the private sector expanded with unprecedented magnitude.

Robert, get out of Ramey's classroom and get a real education.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:30 PM on 04/26/2012
Seriously dude! Out of control unsustainable guvmut spending when they borrow .60 cents of every dollar from nations NOT OUR FRIENDS like the communist human rights violating red chinese doesn't stimulate anything in the private sector except fear and uncertainty. Your the one that needs an education! Try runnin a business for a start.
12:42 PM on 04/27/2012
Did you read the paper?
03:14 PM on 04/26/2012
Even if the U.S. economy (as well as President Obama's reelection campaign) survives the global slowdown, we're heading for a big dose of austerity economics next January -- when drastic spending cuts are scheduled to kick in, as well as tax increases on the middle class. But the U.S. economy isn't nearly healthy enough to bear this burden.

The Republicans will be making the hard necessary choices in Jan 2013 ! Some body has to act like a grown up and take the charge card away from the children! Tough Love !
cosmicdart
paragon of paradigms
03:50 PM on 04/26/2012
But the dire consequences could cost ten times more than the gains. Often times government spends money to save money. We'd be finding out how much money we spend to save money. An increase in poverty will also result in an increase of suicides, people going postal, and crime. Poor people tend to form their own decadent underground culture when the dominant society abandons them. Remember that half of our college graduates are unemployed at this time, poor angry well educated youth could be a problem. We thought Bush knew what he was doing cuz he was a conservative too.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:47 PM on 04/26/2012
Spoken like a true authoritarian (and/or authoritarian follower) just as research of that personality has shown Conservative and the right to be. It has also showed that their unfettered inclinations followed out, tend to be disastrous.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jstrate
01:34 PM on 04/26/2012
Western rulers must be weak on algebra: Y= C + I + G + (X - M).
08:22 PM on 04/26/2012
Which means...?
09:36 AM on 04/28/2012
GDP = Consumption + Investment + Government Spending  + (Exports minus Imports)
bullthull
Enemy of all that is stupid
01:33 PM on 04/26/2012
Hey if Eupore melts down Germany can just reposses other nations,
The western regional capital of Greater Germany ( presently known as Paris ) is very pleasant in the summer.
bullthull
Enemy of all that is stupid
01:31 PM on 04/26/2012
Yeah, the one country in Europe besides England that has any economic scale is sooooo stupid , they run a balanced budget. I
Stupid Germans.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:53 PM on 04/26/2012
Not what Reich is saying. Yes, Germany has developed a thriving economy. He is talking about the course for the EU nations that are experiencing severe economic problems. In THAT case, austerity policies are not the best solution. They are more harmful, while spending to increase employment and providing money for consumers to spend helps to stoke the economy.
11:59 AM on 04/27/2012
If their neighboring economies are in the toilet, their budget won't be balanced for long.
bullthull
Enemy of all that is stupid
12:13 PM on 04/27/2012
Germany has multi national corps that dwarf thier domestic economy, you will never get them to float the rest of Europe
bullthull
Enemy of all that is stupid
01:27 PM on 04/26/2012
"First, that the real issue isn't debt per se but the ratio of the debt to the size of the economy"

But that is what Reagans team said?
I am going outside now to see all the pigs take flight!
mbadge
Moderate middle of the road American. Retired mili
01:11 PM on 04/26/2012
The unstated problem is that when there is growth, governments do not reduce spending. They continue to spend like there is no tomorrow and when the debt becomes unsustainable they try to figure out how to borrow more. Merkel is doing the logical thing. Cut spending. Get the pain out of the way and move forward on a sustainable path.
cosmicdart
paragon of paradigms
05:21 PM on 04/26/2012
Cut spending and thus cut public jobs. Give more money to industry to finance the relocation of American industries off shore, and automate the remaining American jobs out of existence with robotics. Big time unemployment caused by this kind of folly. Cut transfer payments for housing and medical care to immigrants who pick our food thus increasing the cost of food. Big time prices cause by this folly. That's right, go ahead, cut spending. Sustainable madness? Give less to the working poor thus causing more crime leading to spending more on crime prevention, and billion dollar prisons.
10:01 PM on 04/26/2012
So you want to kill a lot of people in the name of your morality. People die because of these cuts that are made, but they must be done in the name of some moral code. You are no better than any of those "destroy the village to save it" types.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mjc
Avoid printing any..
12:18 PM on 04/26/2012
Such a program, austerity, guarantees that the any double dip will be long lasting and probably eliminate many from employment in any business of any sort. Republicans love it because they think it will take this nation back to the days...the "gilded age"?...in which government had very little to tell business and business did exactly what THEY wanted to do regardless of the impact on the "less fortunate", not just the poor but the struggling middle class groups.
12:33 PM on 04/26/2012
The "gilded age" ... 1929 to 1932 (pre-FDR).
cosmicdart
paragon of paradigms
04:13 PM on 04/26/2012
The "Gilded Age" was coined by Mark Twain to describe the wealthy industrialist and financiers of the 1870's. You see: History repeats itself. We've been on this bumpy road before. It was the Republican Teddy Roosevelt who saved us from these blokes early in the following century. Where's Teddy Bear Roosevelt when you need 'em? He stood for the Rights of the People. Republicans have lost their way.
photo
IronicTwist
There's a method to my madness
12:07 PM on 04/26/2012
If Romney somehow gets elected and the Republicans retain control of the House and retake the Senate...

They will not heed the tale of the "austerity trap," emanating from Europe, they will double down on their quasi religious conviction called CONSERVATISM - and go after S.S. and Medicare and as for the future of the U.S.A. as we know it; all bets will be off...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bobt755907
12:16 PM on 04/26/2012
There is madness in your method. The "austerity trap" is Greece.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:39 PM on 04/26/2012
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and completely unsustainable it its current form. If you could buy stock in it I doubt you would and as far as Medicare, it's also unsustainable because it's rife with abuse and fraud.
12:00 PM on 04/27/2012
The entire economic system is a Ponzi scheme and the world has become so interdependent it is becoming impossible to keep the plates spinning in the air. Time for complete revision.
12:03 PM on 04/26/2012
Reich writes, "By reducing public budgets they've removed a critical source of demand -- at a time when consumers and the private sector are still in the gravitational pull of the Great Recession and can't make up the difference. The obvious result is a massive slowdown...and is plunging the continent into recession." But aren't "public budgets" gained through taxes? And aren't taxes secured through our income? If there is no demand for goods, there will be increased unemployment and lower income/profits for workers and businesses. So it would be great to increase public budgets, but how is that possible when the economy is tanking? It seems to me that there is no other alternative than to cut spending! The money for public spending doesn't come out of thin air. I would appreciate a reply. What is wrong with my way of thinking? I respect Mr. Reich, but he seems to have the cart before the horse on this one.
01:53 PM on 04/26/2012
Your point of view makes sense, but only inside the usurious framework that results from a debt based monetary system. The problem is not that money comes out of thin air, in fact that is the solution. No, the problem is that under the present system we only create money out of thin air along with a debt load to go with it.

So we get trapped in a viscous circle: we put money into the system to drive commerce, but it comes with debt, so we struggle to pay the debt, which depresses commerce, and back to stage 1 around and around. And the only thing that grows is the debt, because we can never pay it all back.

A few clever bankers get rich while providing nothing of use, a few other very clever, hard working, and lucky people earn their riches mainly because they were the right person in the right place at the right time, but for the rest of us, we are mostly also very hard working but we struggle to merely survive. Get rid of the debt based monetary system that rule the planet and things would be a million times better.
03:15 PM on 04/26/2012
But we ARE in a debt-based economy. So it seems to me that the only way to reduce debt is to raise taxes and cut spending. (So I think both the Dems and the Repubs have it wrong; they only have half the answer. While Dems want increased taxes and increased spending, the Repubs want decreased taxes and decreased spending. Common sense, simple economics, and history all show that increasing taxes and lowering spending has, in reality, lowered the debt of nations and has led to prosperity....at least until the next set of thieves figure out how to work the system.) Of course it would be great for government to create more jobs, but they can only do so if they raise even more taxes and that puts more of a burden on the taxpayer and takes money out of the markets and out of commerce. Another way to state it, is that the government raising taxes in harsh times simply to create jobs is ARTIFICIAL and puts a great burden on the economy. A short-term fix at best (with dire consequences to follow).

How do you propose that we get rid of a debt-based monetary system?
10:03 PM on 04/26/2012
Public budgets are not gained through taxes, not really. The money is created out of thin air. The government pays people, the money circulates, and then they go and park some of their savings in treasury bills. If the government had not spent, they'd not get this money to park into the treasury bills. The gold standard era is over.
12:12 PM on 04/27/2012
The thing that keeps getting lost in all the discussions here, is that governments do not "do nothing for something". That is, governments provide real services to its clients (the citizens) who pay for that. Now some governments are more efficient than others and all suffer from corruption to some degree or another (no different than the private sector). Seems the 1st order of business when confronting our current state of affairs, is to make a robust effort at attacking waste, inefficiency, and corruption in government (and in the private sector). And only then decide what "hard choices" have to be made, acknowledging that those "hard choices" have cascading costs of their own. It is a sticky wicket. Anybody remember the Grace Commission and how it was shelved?