SG, the term “secular” in econospeak means long-term, decadal-scale (10-30 years or more). In the OP's article, Summers is putting forth what he calls a “secular stagnation thesis,” i.e., decades of stagnation. This is not all that different from what we here on PO.com call economic decline, and only a small step above what we call economic collapse.
It's interesting to see Summers, about as mainstream a financial/economic policy figure as you get, arguing that we may very well see economic stagnation for decades to come. I know the feminists and leftists have all sorts of issues with this guy, but given the post in the OP's link, maybe he wouldn't have made such a bad Fed chair after all. We could use a few more doomers in high places.
Summers wrote:Some time ago speaking at the IMF, I joined others who have invoked the old idea of secular stagnation and raised the possibility that the American and global economies could not rely on normal market mechanisms to assure full employment and strong growth without sustained unconventional policy support
Balls-to-the-walls emergency economic policy actions will be required for the indefinite future if we're to avoid a death spiral.
First, even though financial repair had largely taken place four years ago, recovery since that time has only kept up with population growth and normal productivity growth in the United States, and has been worse elsewhere in the industrial world.
There has been no recovery despite massive interventions in the market.
Second, manifestly unsustainable bubbles and loosening of credit standards during the middle of the last decade, along with very easy money, were sufficient to drive only moderate economic growth.
Economic growth has been slowing for a long time, even with the overheated housing market prior to the pop of '08.
Third, short-term interest rates are severely constrained by zero lower bound and there is very little scope for further reductions in either term premia or credit spreads, and so real interest rates may not be able to fall far enough to spur enough investment to lead to full employment.
We can't cut interest rates lower than zero. Borrow, damn it, why won't you people just borrow?!?!
Fourth, in such a situation falling wages and prices or inflation at slower-than-expected rates is likely to worsen economic performance by encouraging consumers and investors to delay spending, and to redistribute income and wealth from higher spending debtors to lower spending creditors.
Inflation is not the problem, deflation is. People just aren't borrowing and spending enough. This is making the maldistribution of wealth of our society even worse.
The implication of these considerations is that the presumption that runs through most policy discussion — that normal economic and policy conditions will return at some point — cannot be maintained. The point is demonstrated by the Japanese experience,
A return to BAU is fantasy. Japan has paved the way. Decadal-scale stagnation is not only possible, it's been proven.
On the other hand, it is only rational to recognize that low interest rates raise asset values and drive investors to take greater risks, making bubbles more likely. The risk of financial instability provides yet another reason why preempting structural stagnation is so profoundly important.
More bubbles---and associated pops---are likely due to the emergency actions governments and central banks around the world have been taking.
I can't disagree with any of this. I doubt that “preempting structural stagnation” is within our power, but I'd like to read Summers' thoughts on the subject.
A garden will make your rations go further.