Yep, that's what David Brooks says at the NYT. Rivers will flow upstream, and the four horseman will ... Okay, where on earth does Brooks get this? We are facing a serious recession because of the unbelievable incompetence/corruption of Alan Greenspan and his huge contingent of sycophants in the economics profession, business and the media, but years of stagnation or contraction? It would take some really inept economic policies to keep the economy from growing over any substantial period of time. But, unlike custodians and dishwashers, David Brooks is not a person held accountable for his job performance. He gets to say anything he wants, no matter how far from reality, and still collect his paycheck. It's a great world! [Addendum: I also have to beat up Brooks' nonsense in this piece about a "Long Boom" that began in 1983. This dating of a long boom depends entirely on how one deals with the recession years 1980-1982. The growth in the years from 1973 to 1980 was comparable to the growth from years 1983 to 1995. The latter was slightly higher using a gross measure of output, growth in the two periods was virtually identical using the a net measure of output. Since we can't eat depreciation, the latter measure reveals more about living standards. Since Brooks does not want to count the slump years that we are facing as part of the his "Long Boom" then consistency would require that he not count the 1980-82 recession years as part of the 70s, hence he has no basis in reality for dating his Long Boom as beginning in 1983. So, we can either jettison the period 1983-1995 from the boom years or also include the 70s, that is, if we want to be consistent.]
--Dean Baker
