Feeling a lot poorer in a rich country :-(

More than once, I have blogged about Robert Samuelson's analyses and opinions. His lengthy piece in Newsweek gives us an idea of the challenges ahead. And, again, I am confident that my intro students know the situation really well--that they are screwed :-(

The bad news is that recovery, though boosting employment, may prove unsatisfying. Our new economic era may lapse into a state of "affluent deprivation." That's an unfamiliar term. It doesn't mean poverty. The United States will remain a wealthy society. Rather, "affluent deprivation" signifies a state of mind. People feel poorer, because their sluggish income gains get siphoned off into higher taxes, energy costs and health spending. Though these all involve benefits, they don't pay everyday bills or cover people's routine pleasures. There's an approaching collision between private and public wants—government spending for everything from retirement benefits to defense to the repair of roads and bridges. ....

A dilemma for the new president is how to reconcile the needs of the present with those of the future. The immediate need is to revive confidence—to rev up demand and spending, thereby absorbing the jobless and increasing the production of underutilized businesses. But the long-term problem is different. It is to mediate between all the competing demands on the nation's income and to expand the economy's capacity to produce the output that satisfies those demands. The closer the economy comes to stagnation, the more Americans will succumb to distributional struggles—not just between the rich and the poor, but also between the young and the old and between immigrants and natives.

Down that path lies "affluent deprivation." To use an old but apt cliché: people will fight over pieces of a fairly fixed economic pie rather than sharing ever-larger pieces of an expanding pie. The winners may be pleased, but the losers will feel short-changed—and so the conflicts may intensify, with yesterday's winners possibly becoming tomorrow's losers. Politics, which is often about rewarding some and punishing others, may become more so.

Bailout fails: 228 to 205

A hallmark of the crisis has been the stark contrast between the "real economy" of production and jobs and the tumultuous financial markets of stocks, bonds, banks, money funds and the like. Even with the 60 percent drop in housing construction since early 2006, the real economy has so far suffered only modest setbacks. Yes, there are 605,000 fewer payroll jobs than there were in December; still, 137.5 million jobs remain. Meanwhile, financial markets verge on hysteria. The question is whether this hysteria will drive the real economy into a deep recession or worse -- and what we can do to prevent that.

That was Robert Samuelson in Newsweek. I wonder what his reactions will be in his next column, which will surely be on the House voting down the bailout bill

Our local congressman, Peter DeFazio, opposed the bill all the way, and also explained his reasons in a commentary in the Register Guard. I applaud him for explaining his position so clearly to his constituents. Interestingly enough, only one Democrat from Oregon voted for the bill, and she is not up for re-election. The lone Republican voted for the bill. Details here.

Daniel Gross is livid that the House voted it down. He writes:

For in the meantime, the chaos they've created by coming to the table and then throwing a fit works to their disadvantage. Each time a deal is close to done and then gets scuppered, the market (and its many participants) freaks out. Huge quantities of wealth are destroyed. The markets fell about 8 percent after today's stunt, likely wiping out close to $1 trillion in wealth.

Paulson a la Nixon, says Samuelson

Paulson's plan would not be the largest government intervention in the private economy since World War II. That distinction still belongs to Richard Nixon's imposition of wage and price controls in August 1971. True, Paulson would socialize unprecedented amounts of private debt, but Nixon asserted control over the entire economy. What's fascinating are the possible parallels between the two episodes, starting with a shared irony: Both came from administrations committed to "free markets."

Robert Samuelson offers an interesting observation, as always. He adds:

The rescue is being constructed so hastily that it may include all manner of flawed provisions: too much power for the Treasury secretary; authority for bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages. Congress faces a wrenching dilemma, imposed on it by financial markets and Paulson. If it dawdles, it may invite the panic that Paulson has brazenly predicted. But if it acts quickly, it may create a monster whose full implications emerge only with time.