« Paul Krugman: Paranoia Strikes Deeper | Main | How Much "Slack" is Left in Labor Markets? »

Friday, March 23, 2012

Permanent or Temporary?

Here are some graphs from my presentation yesterday to the St. Louis Fed (the talk was trying to convince them to start a blog along the lines of what David Altig did in Cleveland, so the main theme was not the graphs below). The graphs show what happens to GDP after a financial crisis. In some cases the effects seem permanent, in others they appear temporary. What I'd like to do next is figure out if there are any systematic differences between the countries that experience permanent versus temporary effects that can be used to understand why they have such different outcomes. Is it the type of shock? The policy response? Institutional differences? And so on (source of graphs - the vertical blue line marks the start of the crisis):

US after the Great Depression
T02

Hong Kong
T16

Colombia
T03

Spain
T04

Sweden
T05

South Korea
T07

Philippines
T08

Indonesia
T09

Argentina
T10

Japan
T11

Norway
T12

Thailand
T13

Malaysia
T14

Finland
T15

One more note. If you had looked at this graph (from The Economist, the one on the left), you would likely conclude that the fall in GDP for Sweden is permanent:


Sweden and Korea
T06

That looks a lot like the US right now. But if you extend the graph for a few years, the picture changes dramatically:

SwedenT05

Is the US like Sweden? Or not?

    Posted by on Friday, March 23, 2012 at 09:31 AM in Economics, Financial System | Permalink  Comments (20)

          


    Comments

    Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.