Are We Heading Toward Depression (Part 3)?

Retail sales fell again in February. Unemployment continues to rise. After rallying yesterday, stocks continue to drop. Even though the Fed has taken the extraordinary step of bailing out Wall Street banks and taking over their troubled mortgage loans, Wall Street is still unhappy. The Treasury Department is readying new proposals for helping stranded homeowners, which are expected to be unveiled later today.

What's going on? Let me explain as clearly as I can.

American consumers are coming to the end of their ropes and don't have the buying power they need to absorb the goods and services the U.S. economy is capable of producing. This is likely to mean fewer jobs, which will force Americans to pull in their belts even tighter, leading to still fewer jobs – the classic recipe for recession. That recession may turn into a full-fledged Depression if fiscal and monetary policies can't make up for consumers' lack of buying power. And there's reason to worry they cannot because consumers are in a permanent bind. They're deep in debt, their homes are losing value, and their paychecks are shrinking.

Under these circumstances, the usual remedies won't work. Wall Street bailouts have no effect because housing prices continue to fall, and the Street is sitting on a giant pile of bad debt. Tax breaks for business won't generate more investment in factories or equipment because demand for their products what emerges from the factories is dropping. Temporary fixes like a stimulus package that give households a one-time cash infusion won't get consumers back to the malls because they know the assistance is temporary and their problems are permanent. They're likely to pocket the extra money instead of spending it. Additional Fed rate cuts might give consumers access to somewhat cheaper loans, but there's no going back to the easy money of a few years ago. Lenders and borrowers have been badly burned. The values of houses and other major assets are dropping even faster than interest rates can be lowered. Growing numbers of homeowners owe more on their mortgages than their homes are now worth on the market.

We're reaping the whirlwind of many years during which Americans have spent beyond their means and most of the benefits of an expanding economy have gone to a relatively small group at the very top. Adjusted for inflation, the median wage is below where it was in 1999. The nation's median hourly wage is barely higher than it was 35 thirty-five years ago. The income of a man in his 30s is now 12 percent below that of a man his age three decades ago. The rich, meanwhile, can't keep the economy going on their own because they devote a smaller percentage of their earnings to buying things than the rest of us: After all, they're rich, and they already have most of what they want. Instead of buying, they're more likely to invest their earnings wherever around the world they can get the highest return.

Some say well and good. They think our consumer society is unsustainable as it is. They argue Americans should learn to accept a lower standard of living and American business must adjust to a smaller domestic economy. This argument leaves out one salient fact: Considered as a whole, the nation has enough productive capacity to provide a higher standard of living for its citizens and also be sustainable. With the right incentives, we could dramatically reduce energy use and carbon emissions while continuing to grow at a rate that provided most people with good jobs at good wages. The problem isn't economic growth per se. It's unbalanced growth – too much consumption of goods and services that utilize too much energy and generate too much carbon into the atmosphere. Balanced growth is surely possible. But if the economy heads into a severe recession or Depression, there's almost no way to achieve more balance. Hard-pressed Americans will be unwilling to sacrifice anything.

The debate over widening economic inequality of income and wealth in America usually pits fairness against growth. Conservative supply-siders contend that the people at the top not only deserve to be richly rewarded because such rewards encourage them to invest and innovate, and thereby benefit everyone else. Liberals concede that some inequality may be necessary to encourage growth but that we have long passed the point where it is either necessary or fair. But the reality we're now facing poses a different question: Can we have any growth at all when income and wealth are so unequal that most Americans can no longer buy what they produce?

The answer is likely to be no. Go back to the years just before the Great Depression and you see the same pattern. As I've noted before, Marriner S. Eccles, who served as Franklin D. Roosevelt's Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1934 to 1948, noted this in his memoir "Beckoning Frontiers":

"As mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass consumption, in turn, implies a distribution of wealth -- not of existing wealth, but of wealth as it is currently produced -- to provide men with buying power equal to the amount of goods and services offered by the nation's economic machinery. Instead of achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by 1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. This served them as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products that would justify a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in new plants. In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped."

Is the game about to stop again?