AOL Money & Finance

NYT's David Brooks: It's the start of a different kind of economic 'cycle'

More

New York Times (NYSE: NYT) Columnist David Brooks draws attention to a U.S. economic discussion and reality that's been all-but-sidelined in the past three decades, particularly among younger investors and others who believe that history began in 1981. Namely, that there's been a distinct cyclicality to the nation's economic / public policy history.

Is a new progressive era ahead?

That may come as a surprise to market absolutists and others who see economic history and their view of economic progress as a straight line towards privatization. In fact, periods of economic conservatism and liberalism -- the latter also known as progressive reform -- have cycled for much of the nation's history.

For Brooks, those economic blinders help explain both the market absolutists' befuddlement at the financial crisis around them and their inability to adapt to the electoral demands brought on by the crisis. Market absolutists are in a straightjacket of a party that is ailing and part of a conservatism that is behind the times, he says.

On the cycle's timing, economist David H. Wang argues that the old era ends and the new era begins not when social pressures build from the bottom-up, but when institutions -- like investment banks, mortgage lenders and credit default swap issuers -- fail from the top-down.


"The era of anti-government, trickle-down Reagan economics died not due to a rise in poverty and a reduction in the standard of living for most Americans, but when major banks and institutions needed a rescue," Wang said. "Further, the era of the market absolutists had to end because a lack of a rescue would have produced something far worse than the rescue."

Economic Analysis: The task for public officials now is to clarify and sort out what caused the crisis and propose effective remedies. Was the financial crisis caused solely by reckless bankers and Frankenstein-like mortgage backed securities and other derivatives, combined with a lack of accountability for mortgages and toxic assets? Or did structural problems in the U.S. economy -- too many working citizens with incomes inadequate to support economic growth, let alone monthly payments for reset mortgage rates -- cause those mortgage bonds to fail in the first place? If it's the latter, there's a great deal of reform up ahead -- reform the likes of which the nation has not seen since FDR and the New Deal.

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Symbol Lookup
IndexesChangePrice
DJIA-17.2410,433.71
NASDAQ-6.832,169.18
S&P 500-0.591,105.65

Last updated: November 25, 2009: 01:18 AM

BloggingStocks Exclusives

Hot Stocks

DailyFinance Headlines

Latest from BloggingBuyouts

TheFlyOnTheWall.com Headlines

    BioHealth Investor Headlines

    WalletPop Headlines

    My Portfolios

    Track your stocks here!

    Find out why more people track their portfolios on AOL Money & Finance then anywhere else.

    BloggingStocks Partners

    More from AOL Money & Finance

    WalletPop Headlines