Doctor Doom's Financial Forecast: Don't Expect Good Economic Numbers For a Very Long Time
Writing in Forbes, Nouriel Roubini, a.k.a. "Doctor Doom," says things are going to be bad for a very long time:
Until the economy finds new sources of growth, it will grow below potential for several years. Potential GDP growth might also take a hit, falling from around 2.8% during 1997-2008 to around 2.25% in the coming years. Productivity growth has held up-on a temporary basis-during the current recession, not due to innovation or productive investment but due to aggressive cuts in labor and labor hours by firms. In the coming years, productivity growth will remain under pressure as workers age, structural unemployment rises, labor skills deteriorate, and investment and innovation slow.
New sources of growth are needed, indeed! Not just for the economy but for society writ large! Where's the action these days, boys and girls? What's shaping up to be like the way the interwebs were in the '90s (or maybe Snapple), or desktop computing was in the '80s, or punk or something else in the '70s?
Is there anything going on other than governmental elephantitis (which has a way of squashing all other sorts of activities)? When we look back on the first decade of the 21st century (gawd, it's already almost done!), what will we say was the big happening thing, other than the beginning of the end?
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Well, we can't know until the Godawful, civilization-destroting Democrats and Republicans stop their interventions in the economy.
The distortions caused by propping up failing companies are affecting prices, leading to false signals as to what is actually in demand by consumers.
If these morons had been in charge in the 1700's, we'd still be using sailboats to ship crops grown by hand overseas packed in ice harvested from New England ponds in winter.
I think big government spending is the action of this decade. War, bailouts, stimulus, not a damn thing done to counter the madness...
Or, the iPod?
Roubini is actually quite austrian oriented for a neo-keynesian. He diagnoses the correct reason for the problems, but fails to prescribe the corresponding solution.
We will not get a new growth spurt like we have seen in the last 50 years until we find a new source of cheap and peaceful energy. And windmills ain't it.
Nanotechnology
IllegalImmigration
We will not get a new growth spurt like we have seen in the last 50 years until we find a new source of cheap and peaceful energy.
Just hang on a little longer.
Whatever the next growth wave is, it won't be anything that the state can see in advance. And that's a bit of a problem.
The last two computer revolutions escaped the state's notice because they occurred in empty warehouses and shiny office parks of the kind every local planning agency loves to see built. If they had required major infrastructure that was in the least controversial or unsightly, they would have been shut down and the state would not have allowed them to happen. Or if they had happened they would have been scrawny, struggling things, like a couple of weeds growing up through cracks in road concrete. Sort of like the deployment of wind technology now - every two-bit local planner can stop a project if it spoils someone's view.
The problem is that if the "next big thing" isn't hidden from view or office-park friendly like computer software, if it's more like wind, then we can assume it won't be allowed to happen, and as a result we'll never even know that it would have been the next big thing. We'll sit around saying, "Hey, aren't we due for a next big thing right about now?" and it will never come.
Take that solar energy article in Rich's link.
Progressives LOVE solar - until it actually has to be deployed.
If supplying 100% of our energy needs with solar requires the deployment of large fields of parabolic mirrors in "wilderness" areas - Nah Gah Happen.
If supplying 100% of our energy needs with solar requires "historic" buildings to be fitted with solar panels - Nah Gah Happen.
If supplying 100% of our energy needs with solar requires buildings to be coated with nanotechnology paints - Nah Gah Happen. Not after the first housewive posts online that her kid developed autism and she lives in a building coated with the paint. Because that's enough proof for progressives to stop it.
I am starting to think that the country dodged a bullet in 08. Imagine if the bank collapsed had happened in December rather than September and McCain had managed to eek out an election win. McCain would have only been moderately less statist than Obama. But, the media would have made him out to be Barry Goldwater run amuck. The economy would have tanked just like it is and Obama would have been able to roll in 2012 and really been able to blame everything on the "free market". It really would have been 1932.
Instead, Obama and statism are starting to take the rightful blame for this mess. Think about it; will anyone ever believe that a stimulus package is the way to go after the McHopey $700 Billion disaster? Obama has done more to discredit big government in 8 months than Nixon, Ford, and Carter did in 12 years. Even if the Republicans do want to go back to stealing when they get back into power, they won't be able to. I think we are starting to hit a tipping point here.
I think we are starting to hit a tipping point here.
Well, OK, but I'll tip only 10%.
Seriously, John, I agree with your "blame statism" sentiment, although we might have dodged *a* bullet.
Easy. Robots!
Instead, Obama and statism are starting to take the rightful blame for this mess.
[citation needed].
What I see is people saying that Obama's plans for bigger government aren't a solution.
That isn't the same as bigger government isn't a solution, or that big government is the problem.
"What I see is people saying that Obama's plans for bigger government aren't a solution.
That isn't the same as bigger government isn't a solution, or that big government is the problem."
True. But name one other time in the last 80 years, other than maybe for the first two or three months of the Reagan Administration, when people didn't view bigger government as the sollution? Even that is a huge step in the right direction.
Just last night I was looking at my iPhone and marveling how a $200 machine has changed my life for the better. $700 billion of government spending can't come close to the beauty and wonder of private enterprise.
Just last night I was looking at my iPhone and marveling how a $200 machine has changed my life for the better.
Not disputing your point, but do you have a service plan for it? If so, then its costing you a hell of a lot more than $200.
Nursing warehouses...I mean homes...for the Woodstock generation.
Nursing warehouses...I mean homes...for the Woodstock generation.
Speaking of warehouses, lots of cities have empty ones in waterfront locations. This surprises me because I would think everyone would want to live or be entertained in these places to where the value of tearing down or rehabbing such buildings would constantly happen. Instead, office complexes, entertainment venues, and suburban rather than urban housing developments keep creeping out to the wilderness. Is it a lack of creativity from developers? Where it does happen, it seems to do well.
I think it will be figuring out what elephantitis is. Dude, what were you thinking? This is *REASON* man. Even Wikipedia get's it right.
Nick - try to develope a warehouse site, and make money doing it, after getting your EPA report. It is actually much cheaper to develope new.
Where it does happen, it seems to do well.
[Citation needed]
A lot of the marquee waterfront developments (Faneuil Hall in Boston, whatever they call it in Baltimore) were heavily subsidized. The more recent developments also benefited from the real estate bubble.
The internet will keep up advancements for awhile (just think of what it's doing for labor mobility).
Politicians need to get out of the way and cut taxes and spending. People don't want to spend their lives developing new products and services to have money taken at gunpoint.
green technology, "clean" energy, nanotech, armies of robotic insects, and of course, Extenze.
Also, to respond to Fluffy: "Not after the first housewive posts online that her kid developed autism and she lives in a building coated with the paint. Because that's enough proof for progressives to stop it."
Um, I think the majority of progressives worth arguing with would toss the vaccine nonsense into the same bin with colonics and pyramid power. Don't tar us with that brush, and I won't blithely assume that all libertarians believe that President Obama is going to mass murder his enemies with a swine flu vaccine.
Who is John Galt?
"Speaking of warehouses, lots of cities have empty ones in waterfront locations. This surprises me because I would think everyone would want to live or be entertained in these places to where the value of tearing down or rehabbing such buildings would constantly happen. Instead, office complexes, entertainment venues, and suburban rather than urban housing developments keep creeping out to the wilderness. Is it a lack of creativity from developers? Where it does happen, it seems to do well.
Environmental issues in (or near) existing structures, usually due to past industrial uses, causes redevelopment to be way more expensive on the waterfront than in areas where land uses were mostly agricultural or 'undeveloped'.
Maybe environmental regulations should be revisited to allow the old folks to be warehoused in Superfund Sites.
Preview is a good thing.
A lot of the marquee waterfront developments (Faneuil Hall in Boston, whatever they call it in Baltimore) were heavily subsidized. The more recent developments also benefited from the real estate bubble.
Funny you mention that. My wife and I recently discovered The Wire. We just started watching Season 2, which gives the impression that the Baltimore waterfront is turning into yuppy condo land for folks employed in the expanding D.C. government "industry". I'm out on the West Coast, so I have no idea -- is working for or with the Fed the growth industry for yuppies in the D.C. area?
P.S. I know. Balko's been praising The Wire for a while now, but we just got around to watching it.
But name one other time in the last 80 years, other than maybe for the first two or three months of the Reagan Administration, when people didn't view bigger government as the sollution?
Limited govt is all the rage during boom periods (at least rhetorically). Remember when the Clinton administration was seriously considering shuttering a couple of federal departments to keep up with the Gingriches? Of course what really happens is that budget surpluses, which are seen as permanent fixtures rather than fleeting chimeras, lead to permanent govt expansion with little notice.
John | August 27, 2009, 9:05am | #
I'm with you man, but I also agree with Rich's point that 'tipping' may not mean by much. What worries me more is the increased entrenchment of belief that what caused the horrible economic collapse of 2008 was an excess of 'free market' principles; this is taken as de facto when any serious review of the reasons showed a mixed bag of bad incentives (usually initiated by govt regulations and policy), lack of counterparty transparency, and 'musical chairs' views about what the impact of a housing price crash would mean (e.g. "someone's going to get screwed, but its probably not going to be me, because i'm too far up the food chain")
Anyway... I'm with you generally on this one.
I've become a believer of the Every Other Decade Theory from "Dazed and Confused". I'm just holding tight for the next ten years and looking forward to 2020.