2021年6月22日 星期二

Will the tyranny of the 1970s ever end?

How politics blackened a decade's reputation.
Allan Tannenbaum/Getty Images
Author Headshot

By Paul Krugman

Opinion Columnist

Leisure suits went out of fashion more than 40 years ago. High inflation stopped being a problem only a few years later. Yet while you rarely see warnings about the imminent return of disco style, hardly a year goes by without dire predictions that '70s-type stagflation is coming back.

Today's column is about how the case for fearing runaway inflation has collapsed over the past few weeks. But I didn't have space to talk about why such fears have received widespread publicity, even though they were always on very shaky ground.

Of course, one reason people are talking about inflation is that some prices have shot up in the past few months. But I don't have the sense that inflation worriers are really arguing that soaring prices of used cars and lumber are harbingers of a return to double-digit inflation. Instead, they're treating the background of price hikes as a kind of Greek chorus to reinforce their claim that we're repeating the mistakes of the 1970s.

The question is why invoking the specter of the 1970s evokes such terror.

Not that the '70s were a good time economically. The great post World War II boom ended circa 1973, introducing a long period of sluggish gains and often declines in median income. But the '70s don't stand out as worse in that respect than several other periods. Real income growth under Jimmy Carter was better than it was under George Bush the elder; the Gerald Ford and Carter era as a whole was better than the reign of George Bush the younger. And none of the economic travails of the period matched the suffering of the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath.

ADVERTISEMENT

True, there was that inflation, although incomes by and large kept up. Still, by the numbers, it's hard to see why we still scare children by telling them that if they're bad, they'll end up back in the 1970s. What's all that about?

Part of the answer is that the economic troubles of the '70s came along with other bad news. Crime was still on the rise; inner cities were decaying; we lost the war in Vietnam. These were pretty much entirely separate stories both from one another and from the economic malaise, but they tend to merge in historical memory.

But here's the thing about historical memory: It tends to be selective, and what gets remembered often reflects elite agendas. To take an infinitely more important subject than mere economics, how many white Americans were ever taught about the 1921 Tulsa massacre? I know I wasn't.

And so it is with economic history. You very rarely hear about the bleak economic mood of the early 1990s, a time of falling incomes, deindustrialization and widespread fear that the United States was losing out to foreign competitors. Somehow that episode got dropped from the curriculum even though Bill Clinton got elected by campaigning against the Bush economy.

ADVERTISEMENT

But harping on the troubles of the 1970s serves a political purpose. To this day, I keep reading declarations that Carter-era stagflation is an object lesson in the terrible things that happen if taxes and spending are too high. There's actually no evidence that big government had anything to do with the economic problems of the time; soaring oil prices caused by wars and revolutions in the Middle East were probably the biggest factor, plus irresponsible monetary policy (undertaken in part to help Richard Nixon win re-election).

Still, the legend of '70s stagflation as the market's way of punishing America for being too liberal lives on; for influential forces in our political discourse, it remains a story too good to check.

The relevance to our current discourse is obvious. Democrats with a progressive agenda have taken control of the White House and, barely, Congress. Of course, there are widespread declarations that we're about to relive (cue scary music) the … 1970s.

Well, I'm not scared. Unless there's a real possibility of a return to disco-era fashion, which would be terrifying.

ADVERTISEMENT

Quick Hits

Hardly anyone talks about the lessons of the '80s, which aren't what you think.

German selective memory is even worse: Everyone knows about the hyperinflation of 1923, but nobody knows about the disastrous deflationary policies that actually destroyed democracy.

The '70s were economically troubled but culturally innovative.

The '70s economy was better than portrayed, but the food was as bad as you remember.

Feedback
If you're enjoying what you're reading, please consider recommending it to friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week's newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at krugman-newsletter@nytimes.com.

Facing the Movies

"The 1970s." "Neigghhhh!"YouTube

Somehow I think of this when I hear people talk about the 1970s.

Subscribe Today

New York Times Opinion curates a wide range of views, inviting rich discussion and debate that helps readers analyze the world. This work is made possible with the support of subscribers. Please consider subscribing to The Times with this special offer.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Paul Krugman from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

On Tech: The big impact of small changes

Only some of us are riding Peloton bikes and ordering food via app. But this can still disrupt everything.

The big impact of small changes

Irene Suosalo

I'm going to try to shock you with some numbers. They show that we might have a warped view of the popularity of some habits, but also that even small changes in our collective behavior can have huge ripple effects.

Some statistics:

Americans spend about two-thirds of their TV time watching conventional television and just 6 percent streaming Netflix.

Online shopping accounts for less than 14 percent of all the stuff that Americans buy.

Remote work is a hot topic these days, but only about one in six U.S. employees are working that way.

About 6 percent of Americans order from the most popular restaurant delivery company in the United States.

Maybe you're not surprised by those figures. I was. They're a sign that we sometimes believe that behavioral changes from new technologies are far more commonplace than they really are. Why? I'll offer two possible explanations.

The first one is that people (and journalists) tend to pay more attention to what's new and novel. That might be particularly true if the behavioral changes are happening to relatively affluent people. The vast majority of American workers kept doing their jobs in person even in the depths of the pandemic, but about half of professional workers at one point did their jobs away from an office because of the coronavirus.

ADVERTISEMENT

And Peloton, the maker of $2,500 exercise bicycles for streaming fitness classes, has about 2.1 million customers paying to use its exercise bicycles or treadmills. For comparison, about 3.5 million households in the United States had birds as pets during a recent year, according to a veterinary trade group. Peloton might be less popular than parakeets, but it gets far more attention.

This doesn't mean that Peloton doesn't matter, that remote work isn't worth paying attention to, or that Netflix isn't a big deal. Today's novelties can become tomorrow's commonplace.

That brings me to the second explanation, that relatively small but rapid changes in individual acts, repeated millions or billions of times, can disrupt everything around us.

I've written before about how many of our habits and the functioning of pretty much all businesses and cities have been profoundly altered by Amazon and online shopping, which is still a fraction of what we buy. Ditto for Uber and Lyft. The companies account for a small amount of miles driven in the United States, but their vehicles are a significant contributor to traffic and their treatment of couriers has helped prompt a reconsideration of what a job means in the United States and Europe.

ADVERTISEMENT

In an article about New York's economic recovery from the pandemic, my colleagues dropped the mind-blowing stat that if just one in 10 Manhattan office workers stopped coming in most of the time that would translate to "more than 100,000 people a day not picking up a coffee and bagel on their way to work or a drink afterward."

You can imagine that might hurt sales for a bar in Times Square — and maybe help one in the suburbs if people swapped an after-office drink with an after-Zoom one. Just a little more remote work could also profoundly change roads and transit systems that have been designed around peak office worker commute times.

The digital butterfly effect of a zillion little changes can be unpredictable and uneven. People, companies and policymakers will have to figure out how to deal with the big differences that can come from little changes.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

ADVERTISEMENT

TIP OF THE WEEK

Do (and don't) buy these used electronics

Buying used products is often gentler on our wallets and the planet. Brian X. Chen, the consumer technology columnist for The New York Times, recommends which electronics parts and accessories are a savvy secondhand purchase — and which ones might not be worth it.

Memory for computers: Buy. Also known as random access memory, or RAM, these sticks to improve a computer's speed will last indefinitely, as long as the previous owner didn't scuff them up with a screwdriver. It's a good idea to inspect any product photos closely.

Batteries: Avoid. In general, I recommend against buying a used battery for any gadget. Batteries are intended for limited use, so it's better to purchase them new.

Screens: Avoid sometimes. The screens on electronics wear out and look less bright over time. They're also susceptible to disfigurements like "burn in" and dead spots. You can occasionally find a good deal on a used TV with a screen that's not too old and has good picture quality, but it's wise to consider those purchases only from someone you know and trust.

Add-on accessories: Buy most of the time. Peripherals like computer mice and keyboards are pretty reliable. It's still ideal to test them in person to make sure all the buttons and keys work properly. Take a pass on any accessories powered by rechargeable batteries that are not replaceable. And earbuds are a hard pass. Do you really want to wear someone else's used earbuds?

Charging cables: Buy. As long as the cable isn't frayed and the connector looks to be in good condition, it's fine to buy a previously owned charging cable. Try not to spend more than a few bucks apiece since brand-new charging cables tend to be inexpensive.

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

If you've found this newsletter helpful, please consider subscribing to The New York Times — with this special offer. Your support makes our work possible.

Before we go …

Hugs to this

Here are fuzzy king penguin chicks surrounding, pecking and chasing off a cat. (You want the sound on for the full sensory experience.) Thanks to my colleague Erin McCann for tweeting this one.

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you'd like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here. You can also read past On Tech columns.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018