Saturday, August 15, 2020

US facing an ‘epic catastrophe’ of evictions and homelessness [feedly]

US facing an 'epic catastrophe' of evictions and homelessness
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/world/US-facing-an-epic-catastrophe-of-evictions-and-homelessness/shdaily.shtml

Activists and relief groups in the United States are scrambling to head off a monumental wave of evictions nationwide, as the coronavirus crisis leaves tens of millions at risk of homelessness.The jobs catastrophe sparked by the global health emergency and the tepid rebound in the world's largest economy have left Americans struggling to pay rent and vulnerable to eviction.Hopes for relief in the form of a fresh aid package from Washington were dashed as partisan bickering scuppered the latest negotiations.The housing crisis is "already a tsunami," said Bambie Hayes-Brown of Georgia Advancing Communities Together, a coalition of non-profit housing and community development groups."We got some funding from the United Way and we went through it so fast. We were just inundated."Mariatou Diallo, who lives in New York, has not paid her rent since March, when her work in the health care industry dried up. The future frightens her."Right now, I'm very worried because I have an child and if I'm evicted, I don't know what I'm going to do," she said at a rally for rent relief in the Bronx.Weekly census data shows that more than 30 percent of renters in the United States have no or "slight" confidence in their ability to pay rent next month.The Aspen Institute estimated as many as 40 million people could be at risk of eviction in the coming months, leading to "destabilization of communities" across the country.Landlords have filed for nearly 35,000 evictions during the pandemic in 17 cities tracked by the Eviction Lab at Princeton University, although 10 of those cities are blocking the move.In some cases, renters have fallen months behind, but the crisis is only coming to a head now because eviction moratorium orders in several states have expired.In addition, housing courts have reopened after being shuttered for months due to restrictions to curb the spread of the coronavirus.Another factor is the ending on July 31 of federal unemployment benefits that provided US$600 a week to workers laid off due to the pandemic."Without the US$600, nobody can pay the rent," said Yudy Ramirez, who lost her job as a housekeeper at a Manhattan hotel in March.Ramirez, 46, has not made payments for July or August on her apartment in the Bronx, which costs US$1,100 a month. She has no news about possibly returning to her old job, and her health insurance benefits are about to lapse.The prospect of eviction looms especially threatening in working class, non-white neighborhoods like the Bronx, which have suffered more deaths from COVID-19 and experienced disproportionate job losses.About 50 people from the neighborhood including Diallo and Ramirez joined Monday's protest outside the Bronx Housing Court."It's a pandemic — moratorium now!" They chanted in English and Spanish, demanding that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo back legislation to forgive rent.John Pollock, coordinator of the National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel, said the US is facing an "epic catastrophe" on evictions, but that the situation could be mitigated by a fiscal package from Washington.The Democratic bill includes US$100 billion in rent relief, as well as an extension of unemployment benefits. But the Republicans balked at the deal.  

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Restoring the federal estate tax is a proven way to raise revenue and address wealth inequality [feedly]

Restoring the federal estate tax is a proven way to raise revenue and address wealth inequality
https://equitablegrowth.org/restoring-the-federal-estate-tax-is-a-proven-way-to-raise-revenue-and-address-wealth-inequality/

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Cities as Economic Engines: Is Lower Density in our Future? [feedly]

Cities as Economic Engines: Is Lower Density in our Future?
https://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2020/08/cities-as-economic-engines-is-lower.html

When studying urban economics, a common starting point is to make the obvious observation that economic activity does not have an even geographic distribution. Instead, it  clusters in metropolitan areas. To put it another way, even with higher real estate costs, higher wages and prices, traffic congestion, pollution, and crime, businesses find it economically worthwhile to locate in urban areas. For such firms, there must be some offsetting productivity benefit. The Summer 2020 issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives includes a four paper symposium on "Productivity Advantages of Cities." 

Here, I'll focus on a few themes of the first two papers. But it's impossible to read the papers in late-summer 2020 without wondering if the productivity advantages of cities that they describe are going to be a casualty of public concerns over the pandemic and rising crime in urban areas. 

Duranton and Puga provide an overview of the research on economic gains from population density. They write: 
While urban economists broadly agree on the magnitude of the productivity benefits of density, the evidence distinguishing between possible sources is less solid. Duranton and Puga (2004) classify the mechanisms into three broad classes. First, a larger market allows for a more efficient sharing of local infrastructure, a variety of intermediate input suppliers, or a pool of workers. Second, a larger market also allows for better matching between employers and employees, or buyers and suppliers. Finally, a larger market can also facilitate learning, by facilitating the transmission and accumulation of skills or by promoting the development and adoption of new technologies and business practices.
They also point out that these "agglomeration economies" at some point can be outweighed by costs of density like land prices, housing prices, transport costs, and congestion. 
Theory has long hypothesized that as population and density increase in a city, its benefits initially accumulate faster, but eventually, its costs dominate (Henderson 1974). Fujita and Thisse (2013) call this the "fundamental trade-off of spatial economics," because it explains both the existence of cities and their finite sizes. However, compared to research on benefits of density, there is a paucity of research on its costs, which Glaeser (2011) dubbed the "demons of density."
Rosenthal and Strange dig into some of the productivity advantages of density, and discuss the evidence that the gains of economic activity by being grouped together operate at many levels. For example, if one looks at a certain region, it's not just that economic activity is concentrated within the metropolitan area. In addition, there will be pockets of increased density within the overall urban area, like the Wall Street area in New York. And even within those pockets of higher density, there will be geographic concentrations of specific kinds of firms--like financial or legal or advertising firms--that are bunched within a few blocks or even on different floors in the same buildings.  At all of these different levels, there is evidence of productivity gains from being grouped together. They write: 
Agglomeration effects operate at various levels of spatial aggregation, including regional, metropolitan, and neighborhood scales. In fact, there is also evidence that agglomeration effects operate below the neighborhood level, including within buildings and organizations. Although agglomeration effects can extend over broad distances, they also attenuate, with nearby activity exerting the strongest effect on productivity.
For the last few months, the density of workplaces in the US economy has dramatically diminished.  Whatever the productivity benefits of density in cities, concerns over the pandemic and then also about prevalence of crime and rioting are causing firms and workers to push back  against density. Moreover, the different dimensions of density can reinforce each other: that is, a city with lots of residents and workers will also tend to have more option for shopping, restaurants, and entertainment, which in turn makes the city a more attractive destination for residents and workers. Conversely, when many workers shift to telecommuting and many residents are trying to stay home to the extent possible, the firms that offer shopping, restaurants, and entertainment are going to suffer.  

Duranton and Puga point out that over time, these kinds of changes and cycles in urban areas are not new. They write: 

[W]hat will be the long-run consequences of this virus for our densest cities? Pandemics have hit cities the hardest for centuries, and cities have adapted and been shaped by them—from investments in water and sewage systems to prevent cholera, to urban planning to reduce overcrowding and improve air circulation and access to sunlight in response to tuberculosis. Maybe temporary social distancing measures will also leave a permanent footprint on cities—for instance, in the form of more space for pedestrians and bicycles or a gain of outdoor versus indoor leisure environments. But the idea that this pandemic will change cities forever is likely an overstretch. Cities are full of inertia and this crisis has stressed both the costs and benefits of density. Confinement is forcing us to see both the advantages and the great limitations of online meetings relative to the more subtle and unplanned in-person exchanges. It has  made us realize that many tasks are impossible to do from home. At schools and universities, the haphazard transition to online courses may speed up their development, or it may delay it as many students have become frustrated by losing aspects of a full educational experience. For a while, some people may try to avoid dense cities for fear of contagion, but others may be drawn to them seeking work opportunities in difficult times.

They may turn out to be correct, especially if a trustworthy and effective coronavirus vaccine emerges. Maybe I've just got a case of the 2020 blues today, but I find that I'm less optimistic. It feels to me as if our society is jamming a huge amount of change into a short time. Just in economic terms, for example, there have been conversations about the future of telecommuting, telemedicine, and distance learning for decades--but now we are leaping ahead with all of these changes all at once. I don't expect metropolitan areas to go away, but there may be substantial shifts within a given urban area in what characteristics people desire in their living arrangements, the location of where they work, the mixture of jobs and industries, how people relax, and how often they are willing to mix with a crowd. At present many households and firms are still cobbling together temporary arrangements--or at least arrangements that are intended to be temporary. But some proportion of that temporary is likely to have long-lasting and disruptive effects. 


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Bloomberg New Economy: Curing a Virus With Authoritarianism [feedly]

Further evidence of authoritarian political conclusions being drawn by liberal billionaires, if reluctantly, and hesitantly.

Yet, the post hints at profound questions about democracy's ability to manage a crisis where vast  structural and existential damage requires vast change and increased public -- state -- direction and controls over the economy, public health,  and political life. The Republican party began giving up on democracy under Roosevelt, whom they hated, and whose hate he welcomed.  Eisenhower slowed the party's surrender. 

But Johnson's civil rights legislation - the last upward legacy of the New Deal era -- was followed by the corruptions of Nixon: the cynical, racist Southern -- "save the Dixiecrat Confederacy" Strategy; followed by the assassinations of the Kennedys and King (I think we know who did that); followed by the "wars on drugs" (which did nothing to stop drugs, indeed increased their distribution, but disenfranchised millions of African Americans); followed by the mortal national wounds from the debacle of Vietnam ---  the poisoned fruit  of global corporate "world domination" imperialism.

The Republican contempt for democratic norms accelerated under Reagan, with ever closer ties to utra-right, racist and fascist-minded movements, some under the cover of fake Christianity. It was mostly funded by billionaires. 

The divisions had a big impact on Democrats too. Under Clinton the Democratic Party leadership gave up the New Deal coalition as "unwinnable" -- a democratic coalition that successfully managed a world wide crisis WITHOUT major recourse to authoritarian models. Hope instead was placed in new capital centers, especially high-tech and entertainment.  But that has proven to be a vain and illusory escape from defending against blatant attacks on the path of "a more perfect union"

The weakening of unions and assaults on civil rights, and rising inequality, spread ever deeper, and in sync.  Corporate elites, including the liberal ones, pleaded for the "necessity" of further vast accumulations of wealth to "reproduce the system" [Reginald Jones, Chair of GE in the 70's -- the "most profitable corporation in the world"]. Vicious assaults on the franchise of African Americans and the poor became Republican doctrine. The decades of anti-communist, anti-liberation fraudulent covers for militarization gave rise to a military establishment no longer dependentt on democratic declarations of war, or drafts -- viable only for foreign policies that HAVE WIDE PUBLIC SUPPORT. Taxpayers were broadly lied to about savage and brutal colonial and neo-colonial extraction regimes, which led to military and covert subversions of actual democratic movements across the world.

And now Trump - more the product than the cause of American decline. I submit the crossroads we approach now -- in a pandemic which has exposed the profound depth of our corruption -- will destroy this union if the Republican party as presently composed and led, is not outlawed and repressed. There is now no more common ground between the two parties that there was in 1858 between the Repubican Party and the treasonous slavocracy Democratic party of that time.

It is inevitable that in big crises, the state becomes bigger and more authoritarian. It can be temporary, and democracy can be restored, but only if a renewed foundation of national unity can be defined and sustained. 

Of large nations, China has been the most successful in this crisis, and is a one party state. Bourgeois voices assume that is the same as "authoritarian".  That certainly applies to some regimes. But not all. The US was a one party state through the revolution and the civil war. What happens down the road from here is not determined.
*************************************************************

Bloomberg New Economy: Curing a Virus With Authoritarianism

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2020-08-15/bloomberg-new-economy-curing-a-virus-with-authoritarianism

The campaign against plague in the Middle Ages "marked a moment in the emergence of absolutism," writes Yale University historian Frank M. Snowden in "Epidemics and Society: From the Black Death to the Present." Ever since then, autocrats have used epidemics as an excuse to tighten control over their subjects.

The basic tools they deploy have hardly changed, including quarantine and sanitary cordons. And their playbook has remained remarkably consistent: Seize control of the economy, drastically restrict the movement of people and authorize forcible detentions. Authoritarians generally figure that traumatized populations will give them credit for taking resolute action. Indeed, history shows that citizens and civic leaders rarely resist.

Covid-19 represents a new moment in this march of state power. In an era of Artificial Intelligence-enabled digital surveillance, governments around the world have been unable to resist the temptation to intrude more deeply into the lives of their citizens, as always justifying their draconian actions in the name of conquering a mortal threat.

A security guard carrying a rifle monitors a shopper, left, exiting a disinfection channel installed at the entrance of a shopping mall in Manila on May 16.Photographer: Ted Aljibe/AFP

This week in the New Economy

Alibaba and Xiaomi get into Hong Kong's benchmark index.
Venezuela boosts oil exports even as production plummets.
And the U.S. seized Iranian tankers carrying fuel to Venezuela.
Elite Thai visa program aims to lure expats seeking virus haven.
South Africa plans a building boom to spur virus recovery.
 

"The overlap of these two global disruptions—the epidemiological and the technological—will shape the next few years of global history," writes Nicholas Wright, a medical doctor and neuroscientist who works on emerging technologies and global strategy at University College London and Georgetown University Medical Center.

Beyond the lingering health effects on its victims, as well as the economic scars, the lasting legacy of the novel coronavirus is likely to be a permanent erosion of civil liberties.

Israel, for instance, has tapped into troves of secret mobile phone data collected for counterterrorism purposes to fight the virus. Singapore requires visitors to wear tracking devices. South Korea uses credit card data to triangulate the movement of its citizens. Meanwhile, the state of Karnataka in India demands hourly selfies from those in quarantine.

Taiwan had previously merged its national health insurance database with its customs and immigration database, a system that is now generating real-time alerts among patients seeking treatment based on travel history.

Volunteers measure temperatures and scan health codes for residents of Jilin City, China, on May 17.Photographer: Barcroft Media

And China, where the Covid-19 outbreak originated, has seized upon the pandemic to add to its existing state surveillance.

In dealing with the crisis, the scholars Sheena Chestnut Greitens and Julian Gewirtz note that Chinese leaders have fused the concepts of public health and national security. This effort, in Chinese Communist Party-speak, is known as "fangkong," or "prevent and control." Local public security bureaus have been helping companies develop health-monitoring apps, and then making use of the data these apps spew out—everything from body temperatures to social contacts—to profile citizens in minute detail.

State capacity of this kind is growing around the world, in large part thanks to China's efforts to export surveillance technology to countries from Central Asia to Africa that have signed up to its "Belt and Road" infrastructure-building project.

"Democracies must develop a clear and distinct vision for the future relationship between health and security so that China's approach does not become the world's," write Greitens and Gewirtz.

It is true however that surveillance is an essential tool of public health, and some restrictions on individual freedoms are necessary to prevent the spread of infection and save lives.

That said, it's far easier for governments to grab power under cover of an epidemic than for citizens to claw it back once the threat recedes. For this reason, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has warned that emergency measures implemented to combat Covid-19 should be time-limited, "the least intrusive to achieve the stated public health goals" and include safeguards "to ensure return to ordinary laws as soon as the emergency situation is over."

The plagues of the Middle Ages, notes Yale's Snowden, usually killed more than half of their victims, giving rise to the cliche that too few survived to bury the dead. Covid-19 has been far less deadly, but the political impact could be just as profound.

Once this pandemic is conquered, the first priority will be rolling back the state.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Friday, August 14, 2020

Millions of workers are relying on unemployment insurance benefits that are being stalled and slashed [feedly]

Millions of workers are relying on unemployment insurance benefits that are being stalled and slashed
https://www.epi.org/blog/millions-of-workers-are-relying-on-unemployment-insurance-benefits-that-are-being-stalled-and-slashed/

Last week 1.3 million workers applied for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits. More specifically, 832,000 applied for regular state unemployment insurance (not seasonally adjusted), and 489,000 applied for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA). Some headlines this morning are saying there were 963,000 UI claims last week, but that's not the right number to use. Instead, our measure includes PUA, the federal program that is supporting millions of workers who are not eligible for regular UI, such as the self-employed. We also use not seasonally adjusted data, because the way Department of Labor (DOL) does seasonal adjustments (which is useful in normal times) distorts the data right now.

Astonishingly high numbers of workers continue to claim UI, and we are still 12.9 million jobs short of February employment levels. And yet, Senate Republicans allowed the across-the-board $600 increase in weekly UI benefits—the most effective economic policy crisis response so far—to expire.

In an unserious move of political theater, the Trump administration has proposed starting up an entirely new system of restoring wages to laid-off workers through executive order (EO). But even in their EO wishlist, the Trump administration would slash the federal contribution to enhanced unemployment benefits in half, to $300. This inaction and ongoing uncertainty is causing significant economic pain for workers who have lost their job during the pandemic and their families. It also causes an administrative hassle for state agencies that have already struggled immensely to process the huge number of claims early in the pandemic and implement the new UI protections in the CARES Act. Since the states with the least stable UI systems also have the highest populations of Black and Latinx people, existing inequalities will likely deepen even further by both the cutoff of supplementary benefits and the increased chaos introduced by having presidential EOs pretend to stand in for the legislative action that is needed.

Cutting UI benefits is directly harmful not just to the individual workers who rely on them, but to the economy as a whole. The additional $600 in benefits allowed for a large amount of spending, sustaining these workers' effective demand for goods and services even in the face of joblessness. If the Trump administration gets their way and these benefits are cut in half, it would cause such a large drop in spending that it would cost us 2.6 million jobs over the next year.

During the pandemic, Black and brown communities have suffered disproportionately on the front lines and in the unemployment lines. Black women in essential occupations are paid less than white men for doing the same vital work. At the same time, Black and Hispanic workers have seen higher unemployment rates than white workers in this recession, meaning they are disproportionately harmed by the cut to UI benefits. These communities, and Black women in particular, should be centered in policy solutions.

Some have argued that the additional benefits create a disincentive for workers to return to the workforce. However, studies—including one conducted by Yale economists—found no evidence that recipients of more generous benefits were less likely to return to work. Further, there are millions more unemployed workers than job openings, meaning millions will remain jobless no matter what they do. In short, the primary constraint on job growth in the near term is depressed demand for workers, not workers' incentives. In any case, our top priority as a country should be protecting the health and safety of workers and our broader communities by paying workers to stay home when they feel safer not working in person (or feel their families' welfare is improved by them not working in the pandemic), whether that means working from home some or all of the time, using paid leave, or claiming UI benefits. The recent spikes in coronavirus cases across the country—and subsequent re-shuttering of certain businesses—show the devastating costs of reopening economic sectors prematurely.

Figure A combines the most recent data on both continuing claims and initial claims to get a measure of the total number of people either receiving or planning to receive unemployment benefits as of August 8. DOL numbers indicate that right now, 29.7 million workers are either on unemployment benefits, have been approved and are waiting for benefits, or have applied recently and are waiting to get approved. But importantly, Figure A provides an upper bound on the number of people "on" UI, for two reasons: (1) Some individuals may be being counted twice. Regular state UI and PUA claims should be non-overlapping—that is how DOL has directed state agencies to report them—but some individuals may be erroneously counted as being in both programs; (2) Some states are likely including some back weeks in their continuing PUA claims, which would also lead to double counting (the discussion around Figure 3 in this paper covers this issue well).

Figure A

Figure B shows continuing claims in all programs over time (the latest data are for July 25). Continuing claims are 26.6 million above where they were a year ago. However, the above caveat about potential double counting applies here too, which means the trends over time should be interpreted with caution.

Figure B

As the pandemic drags on, many workers are facing long-term joblessness. The number of people claiming Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC), the 13 additional weeks of benefits available to workers who have exhausted the 26 weeks of regular benefits, increased by 67,000 during the week of July 25. However, it is clear that even this 13 week extension is not enough to meet the needs of many workers, and policymakers should extend it even further. As evidence of this, the Extended Benefits program, which provides an additional 13 weeks of benefits after PEUC, had a 56,000 increase in claimants during the week of July 25. There are now 126,000 workers claiming Extended Benefits, the highest number so far this recession, and every state meets the high unemployment threshold that is required for these benefits to kick into effect. Congress must not allow another crucial provision to lapse.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Enlighten Radio:Talkin Socialism: Unemployment -- what is the cure?

The Red Caboose has sent you a link to a blog:



Blog: Enlighten Radio
Post: Talkin Socialism: Unemployment -- what is the cure?
Link: https://www.enlightenradio.org/2020/08/talkin-socialism-unemployment-what-is.html

--
Powered by Blogger
https://www.blogger.com/

Thursday, August 13, 2020

Let’s call it what it is. We’re in a Pandemic Depression. [feedly]

Let's call it what it is. We're in a Pandemic Depression.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-call-it-what-it-is-were-in-a-pandemic-depression/2020/08/09/3904faf4-d8e5-11ea-aff6-220dd3a14741_story.html?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=wp_opinions

It must be clear to almost everyone by now that the sudden and sharp economic downturn that began in late March is something more than a severe recession. That label was, perhaps, justifiable for the 2007-2009 Great Recession, when unemployment reached a peak of 10 percent. It isn't now.

"This situation is so dire that it deserves to be called a 'depression' — a pandemic depression," write economists Carmen Reinhart and Vincent Reinhart in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs. "The memory of the Great Depression has prevented economists and others from using that word."

It's understandable. People don't want to be accused of alarmism and making a bad situation worse. But this reticence is self-defeating and ahistoric. It minimizes the gravity of the crisis and ignores comparisons with the 1930s and the 19th century. That matters. If the hordes of party-goers had understood the pandemic's true dangers, perhaps they would have been more responsible in practicing social distancing.

Even after the July jobs report, when the unemployment rate fell from June's 11.1 percent to 10.2 percent, the labor market remains dismal. Here are comparisons with February, the last month before the pandemic was fully reflected in job statistics: The number of employed fell by 15.2 million; the unemployed rose by 10.6 million; and those not in the labor force increased by 5.5 million.

Opinion | Eviction in a pandemic: Experts warn of unprecedented crisis without federal relief
Without federal intervention, experts warn of an unprecedented wave of evictions in the coming months, more devastating than the 2008 foreclosure crisis. (Joy Sharon Yi/The Washington Post)
AD

"The nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were filled with depressions," write the husband-and-wife Reinharts. Among economists, they are heavy hitters. She is a Harvard professor, on leave and serving as the chief economist of the World Bank; he was a top official at the Federal Reserve and is now chief economist at BNY Mellon.

What's clear is that the Pandemic Depression resembles the Great Depression of the 1930s more than it does the typical post-World War II recession. To simplify slightly: The typical postwar slump occurred when the Fed raised interest rates to reduce consumer price inflation. They lowered rates to stimulate growth.

By contrast, both the Great Recession and the Pandemic Depression had other causes. The Great Recession reflected runaway real estate and financial speculation and their adverse effects on the banking system. The Pandemic Depression occurred when infection fears and government mandates led to layoffs and an implosion of consumer spending.

AD

The collateral damage has been huge. Small businesses accounted for 47 percent of private-sector jobs in 2016, estimates the Small Business Administration. Many have failed or will fail because they lacked the cash to survive a lengthy shut down. In a new study, economist Robert Fairlie of the University of California at Santa Cruz reports an 8 percent drop in the number of small businesses from February to June. Among African Americans, the decline was 19 percent; among Hispanics, 10 percent.

In one respect, the Reinharts have underestimated the parallels between the today's depression and its 1930s predecessor. What was unnerving about the Great Depression is that its causes were not understood at the time. People feared what they could not explain. The consensus belief was that business downturns were self-correcting. Surplus inventories would be sold; inefficient firms would fail; wages would drop. The survivors of this brutal process would then be in a position to expand.

This view rationalized patience and passivity. Just wait; things will get better. When they didn't, anxiety and discontent mounted. There was an intellectual void. Modern scholarship has filled the void. If — at the time — government had been more aggressive, preventing bank failures and embracing larger budget deficits to stimulate spending, the economy wouldn't have collapsed. The Great Depression wouldn't have been so great.

Something similar is occurring today. The interaction between medicine and economics often baffles. Is this a health-care crisis or an economic crisis? Before the New Deal in the 1930s, national leaders followed the conventional wisdom of the day — doing little. Similarly, leaders now are following today's conventional wisdom, which is to spend lavishly. Will this work or will the explosion of government debt ultimately create a new sort of crisis?

The language of the past increasingly fits the conditions of the present. The many busts of the 19th century have long been referred to as "depressions" — for example, in the late 1830s, the 1870s and the 1890s. The accepted reality at the time was that mere mortals had little control over economic events. We thought we had moved on, but maybe we haven't.

The implications for the economic outlook are daunting. In their essay, the Reinharts distinguish between an economic "rebound" and an economic "recovery." A rebound implies positive economic growth, which they consider likely, but not enough to achieve full recovery. This would equal or surpass the economy's performance before the pandemic. How long would that take? Five years is the Reinharts' best guess — and maybe more.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed