Economics

Le mythe de la stagnation séculaire

Aug 28, 2018 Joseph E. Stiglitz

NEW YORK – À la suite de la crise financière de 2008, certains économistes ont fait valoir que les États-Unis, et peut-être l'économie mondiale, souffrait de « stagnation séculaire », une idée initialement conçue à la suite de la Grande Dépression. Les économies ont toujours récupéré des ralentissements. Mais la Grande Dépression avait duré comme jamais auparavant. Beaucoup estimaient que l'économie avait récupéré uniquement grâce aux dépenses du gouvernement durant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, et beaucoup craignaient que l'économie retournerait à son marasme à la fin de la guerre.

Quelque chose s’était produit, croyait-on, qui ferait en sorte que l'économie continuerait à languir, même en présence des taux d'intérêt faibles ou nuls. Pour des raisons maintenant bien comprises, ces sombres prédictions se sont heureusement avérées fausses.

Les responsables de la gestion de la reprise de 2008 (les mêmes personnes qui étaient coupables de la sous-réglementation de l'économie durant la période précédant la crise, vers qui le président Barack Obama s’est tourné, de manière inexplicable, pour réparer ce qu'elles avaient contribué à détruire) ont trouvé l'idée de stagnation séculaire attractive, parce qu'elle explique leurs échecs dans la recherche d’une reprise rapide et robuste. Ainsi, alors que l'économie languissait, l'idée a trouvé un nouveau souffle: ne nous blâmez pas, disaient ses promoteurs, nous faisons ce que nous pouvons.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

Our latest event, What Economics is Missing, is now live.

Click the link below for opening remarks from Dani Rodrik, followed by a discussion among Ashwini Deshpande, Raquel Fernández, Minouche Shafik, and Vera Songwe on how to achieve inclusivity in economics.

Watch Now

Joseph E. Stiglitz

Writing for PS since 2001
320 Commentaries

Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics and University Professor at Columbia University, is a former chief economist of the World Bank (1997-2000), chair of the US President’s Council of Economic Advisers, and co-chair of the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices. He is a member of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation and was lead author of the 1995 IPCC Climate Assessment.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 51 Comments on this article

gaurav Bhati Sep 11, 2018

By arguing that tax cuts led to full employment, aren't you inadvertently lending support to the idea of trickle-down economics? Would the US not have achieved full employment without tax cuts?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Andrew (Andy) Crow Sep 5, 2018

"The fallout from the financial crisis was more severe, and massive redistribution of income and wealth toward the top had weakened aggregate demand......."

How stupid does a polity have to be not to realise that if consumers are cash constrained, and fearful for the future , aggregate demand will be reduced?......probably in direct proportion to the level of the constraint and the fear.

".....The economy was experiencing a transition from manufacturing to services, and market economies don’t manage such transitions well on their own."

Some would maybe wish to point out that what market economies CAN manage on their own is about zilch. Market economies cannot work effectively without the social and physical infrastructure which the State provides.

When we come to terms with what I conclude must be a 'fact' (if such a thing as a fact can be identified in the field of political economy) we may eventually see some progress in human affairs.
- ron smith Sep 17, 2018
  
  Whether or not a polity is "stupid", if it is not sufficiently invested in the outcome to read, to learn and to vote, is intelligence (or lack thereof) really the main problem?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Renard Nelson Sep 3, 2018

Somewhat surprised you'd view the Obama administration as culpable for not pursuing a larger, bolder, package from a congress that constantly worked to undermine his agenda. Even with a Democratic majority, McConnell & the GOP were intent on making it appear that the fiscal stimulus the administration was able to pull together was akin to welfare (of sorts)... Democrats were, in my view; more culpable for their lack of a killer approach (as we've seen Republicans in the era of Trump).
- Andrew (Andy) Crow Sep 5, 2018
  
  Yes, but as you say he failed utterly to get useful policy past, or through, congress. Are we to let that failure count as a success then ?
  
  I'd say Obama's presidency was disastrous, but I don't say that was his intention.
  
  The road to Hell, they say, is paved with 'good intentions'.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Manu Oquendo Sep 3, 2018

Mr. Stiglitz, with all due respect, should consider freeing himself from ideology. This article fails to address very deep issues with economics, dismal "science", which the global and social power system is unable to recognize.
- Andrew (Andy) Crow Sep 5, 2018
  
  Mr Stiglitz is one of many academic and non academic 'economists' who are struggling to identify just why economics is so utterly dismal and almost totally devoid of 'science'.
  
  Concentration on symptoms to the exclusion of underlying causes means we may do well to ignore the bulk of their somewhat esoteric pontifications.
  
  I'd say Jo Stiglitz is doing rather better than most, but his is still isn't a riveting or particularly enlightening contribution. He butters few parsnips, but some of his colleagues butter non at all.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gary Stegen Sep 2, 2018

This article is strange to say the least. The terminology is backwards, i.e. "secular stagnation" is a result, not a cause. Symptoms of stagnation include high unemployment and underemployment, economy producing at less than potential, and economic growth below potential. Secular stagnation simply means long term or persistent stagnation, regardless of the causes. There is a long list of potential contributors to secular stagnation and also a long list of potential ways to reduce it. The author has chosen to focus on a few options out of the long list, e.g. increased fiscal stimulus (in 2009) and income redistribution or reduction of income inequality. Why not include some favored by the right wing, such as increasing investment spending by improving the expected profitability of prospective investments or by reducing the risk or restraints on investment spending related to regulations etc. Or why not include some favored by Trump such as increasing US based production and investment by increasing the effective market prices of goods that are currently depressed by low priced or subsidized imports (thus increasing the profitability of US based production and investments). When "economists" present one sided arguments with no balance or perspective they become nothing more than political hacks and lose all credibility.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
joel bernard Sep 2, 2018

This column is really a critique of neo-liberal economists, e.g. Larry Summers and other of President Obama's advisors, who tried to justify the slow effects of the inadequate stimulus. I agree with almost all of it except the headline. Secular stagnation is indeed a plausible account of what is happening in all developed economies since the late 1970s. It's just insufficiently specific about what is stagnating. The global economic story of the past 50 years is the rise of the Asian middle class, and the resulting stagnation of American, more recently European, incomes.

One might ask Stieglitz how policies that (optimistically) "boosted growth to around 4% and brought unemployment down to a 18-year low" can also be described as encouraging (pessimistically) "growth fetishism – especially when we think of the environmental costs, and even more so if that growth fails to bring much benefit to the vast majority of citizens." One answer is that in an increasingly unequal, financialized economy, "even if GDP increases, the incomes of the majority of citizens will stagnate." There it is: stagnation!

If GDP growth is fundamentally a poor measure of increasing social welfare, the challenges of policy ought to be pursuing activist policies of income redistribution to counter the inevitable stagnation of secular median per capita GDP in the developed West.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ben Leet Sep 2, 2018

In France the lower-earning 50% grew their income at the same rate of France's economic growth, between 1980-2014, states the Washington Center on Equitable Growth (see Tale of Two Countries at equitablegrowth.org), and now France's lower 50% have incomes higher than the U.S.'s lower 50%, even though the French economy is a third less productive per capita than the U.S. -- Meaning that the U.S. stagnation of income during 1980-2014 was not inevitable, and globalization forces did not stop the French from managing their economy so that all income levels grew. In the U.S. the non-supervisory workers "average weekly earnings" are lower today than they were in 1964, says "data BLS" (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Fifty-four years ago the average weekly and yearly income of the 80% who are non-supervisory was higher, just barely. And in those 54 years the Bureau of Economic Analysis says the per capita disposable income tripled, from around $14,000 to over $42,000. I can hardly imagine a worse record. Probably private banking should be abolished in the U.S., and let the government run it as a public utility. Sanders has proposed a surtax of 50% on personal incomes above $1 million, and maybe there should be a surtax on corporate earnings uninvested in fixed assets, research, expansion of facilities (not intellectual property) or pay raises. Michael Roberts has an important news analysis, he's the Marxian economist in Great Britain. He supports these positions, as I do. My blog, Economics Without Greed, http://benL8.blogspot.com
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Allan Gross Sep 2, 2018

Finally a column from Stiglitz that I can at least partially agree with despite his continued clear animus to the President. The author is tortured by his being forced to confront the truth of the current economic picture. His future apprehensions are conjecture and given his past record of prediction he does not inspire confidence in their being on point. I quote from his article...

"The sudden increase in the US deficit, from around 3% to almost 6% of GDP, owing to a poorly designed regressive tax bill and a bipartisan expenditure increase, has boosted growth to around 4% and brought unemployment down to a 18-year low. These measures may be ill-conceived, but they show that with enough fiscal support, full employment can be attained, even as interest rates rise well above zero".

"poorly designed", "boosted growth to around 4%", "brought unemployment down to a 18 year low", "measures may be ill-conceived", " etc. If ill conceived and poorly designed policies can boost growth to around 4% and bring unemployment down to an 18 year low I say GIVE ME MORE!
- Kimpton Bradford Sep 3, 2018
  
  You cannot have more!
  Trump and the criminals in his orbit have maximized their personal take from a functional economy brought about by, admittedly "poorly designed" policies from the earlier administration.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Barry Rosenfeld Sep 2, 2018
  
  One hopes that you weren't one of those deficit hawks who refused adequate stimulus when needed, e.g., when the U Rate was 10%, and who believed that any increase in the federal deficit was a one way ticket to perdition. Suddenly, a deficit of 6% of GDP is a cause for celebration. Too bad you didn't support Stiglitz and others who proposed a serious deficit increase when the economy needed it, but rather thought that the Summers advice to Obama was more than adequate.
  
  Just because the bathtub is overflowing now, don't think that there will be no shortage in the near future. IF interest rates approach historical norms, debt charges might outstrip defense spending as the second highest component of federal spending. Then the fun will begin as the fight between "guns and butter" becomes the defining issue.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Waleed Addas Sep 2, 2018

But Joseph the challenge will still remain: you know too well that politicians are not economists or highly learned moral individuals, and as such 'flawed economic policies' will continue to be the norm rather than the exception -- and at global level. Unfortunately, the concept of "stagnation" will continue to define US and other regional politics unless some very serious legal revisions are made by the people on the quality and eligibility of their future leaders...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Alexander Sep 2, 2018

"[T]here is nothing that inherently prevents our economy from being run in a way that ensures full employment and shared prosperity." I agree without reservation, not because I might be an accomplished economist, or because I might be infallible, but simply because I believe deeply that no tax should be other than progressive. Taxation in its modern, largely regressive form is part of the machinery by which capital is conveyed upward to the already powerful, and will be largely responsible for the extinction of humanity if global warming conduces to such event.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
tstreithorst Sep 2, 2018

I don't mean to tell a Nobel Prize winner he should reread Alvin Hansen's 1938 speech but I don't think he understands secular stagnation. In simplest terms, secular stagnation occurs when private sector desire to save exceeds desire to invest. The solution, I think we both agree, is for the government to become the investor of last resort.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
shayre Sep 2, 2018

The errors and recommendations of what should have been done in 2009 are the right solutions AFTER globalization is no longer a win-win for the U.S. and China, and therefore comes to an end, BUT, in 2009, the policies implemented were correct, because they forced China's hand into fueling their own debt bubble to an incredible level. The U.S. was able to recover based on China's fiscal stimulus more than its own.

So, this is the story that must be sold to the masses today (with globalization now coming to an end).

To believe that this has not been understood since the time of Keynes is naive at best.

The reality is, it was just not pragmatic to implement these ideas until such time that all the benefits of hegemony, and being a printer of the world's reserve currency, had come to an end. Until then, neoliberalism was the most pragmatic option to convince the citizens of the developed world to desire (Reagan and Thatcher's winning pitch to the people). Those responsible for manufacturing the needed consent fully understood this reality.

The last kick at the can for the developed world was going to be the China-driven globalization that began in the 80s. The U.S. has ridden this wave about as brilliantly as it possibly could have (the central bank, and the fiscal policies implemented, regardless of which party was in power, as hard as it is to believe, did an amazing job, for Americans, even though it may not feel like it right now). It was better to let the wealth become concentrated in American hands versus letting it leak out. Wealth in American hands can be taxed back easily enough. Wealth in the hands of non-Americans can only be taken back by providing goods and services in return. By limiting the leakage, the developed world prolonged the benefits that accrued to it for as long as humanly possible.

When globalization comes to an end (no longer a win-win for the U.S. and China), these are going to be the policies implemented by developed-world countries. Some are already more along the path than others. The relationship that existed between the developed world and China will now exist between China and the developing world (especially Africa).

Why it's important for Trump to continue to run huge deficits right now is because it will justify raising minimum wages and wages in general (and wages are sticky, and therefore, less likely to fall when things eventually are allowed to become a little less inflationary). Again, this is the right policy to set up the proper fundamentals for a post-globalization reality (for the developed world). It will also justify the trillion-dollar deficits that the Democrats continue to run after 2020, but with a shift from military spending towards more progressive policies aimed at raising income, healthcare of, and education achievements of the 90%.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Emilio Zuniga Sep 2, 2018

Dr. Stiglitz ignores that most economists agreed with a more powerfull fiscal policy at the time. That was opposed by the Reps in Congress. As a result the unconventional monetary policy of QE came to support growth. Again the Rep opposed but they do not control the FED and we had a week recovery. It is in this context that the thought of secular stagnation was revived. That is in light of polítical opposition to a strong fiscal policy by the Congress , the US economy faced the secular stagnation scenario. Trump changed the game when he proposed to increase the fiscal deficit by cuting taxes. As most economist expect, that will be a short term boost to grow but a long term failure.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
E. Swanson Aug 31, 2018

Joseph Stiglitz wrote: "...there is nothing that inherently prevents our economy from being run in a way that ensures full employment and shared prosperity. "

Actually, there are real limits to growth. The developed economies depend on fossil fuels, which are by definition, not sustainable sources of energy. The U.S. experienced the effects of global problems in oil supply in 1973, 1979 and again in 2008 when world oil prices spiked. We temporarily enjoy a surplus due to new extraction techniques, but these techniques only increase the rate of depletion of known resources. Fracked wells produce high flow rates initially, but there's a steep decline in production as the wells deplete rapidly.

Furthermore, given that U.S. and global population continues to climb, the per capita amount of those fossil fuel resources, particularly oil, is steadily declining. Added to these problems is the Greenhouse Effect, which is already causing the world's climate to change. Some scientists have claimed that the world's economies must essentially stop all burning of carbon fuels in the immediate future if serious changes to climate are to be avoided. The twin problems of resource depletion and climate change imply that the entire world economy must be completely rebuilt with fundamentally different energy sources, a prospect which appears impossible, given current political and economic constraints.

Sorry folks, continued exponential growth on a finite planet is a path to certain disaster...
- John Alexander Sep 8, 2018
  
  "Actually, there are real limits to growth." Yes, of course there are, but nowhere in this article does Stiglitz say otherwise. His concern is with now, with the present, perhaps implicitly with the survival of civilization. He is not seeking to endorse the superstition according to which economic growth is the answer to everything.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Wolff Aug 31, 2018

I believe there are more profound underlying factors in the slow recovery that allowed Trump to capture the Presidency to take responsibility for the holistic national economy. Free market advocates believe the US economy works without national level stewards of the holistic economy, but that was based on Greenspan's mistaken belief that individual institutional leaders were responsible to and for the institutions they led. Greenspan admitted his mistake in 2008.
The truth is that US institutions are at war among themselves for money and power, and see their own institutional wins as necessarily ameliorating the power of other US institutions. Thus, the crux of the problem is a lack of unified support among institutional leaders for survival and health of the holistic national economy. For example, Wall Street international banks are at war with Washington anti-globalists who want an America First policy in economic expansion and debt recovery that serves Americans as a whole.
The anti-patriotic globalists got what they deserved in Trump, who is the only politician in Washington who says the economic growth of the nation as a whole is more important than who wins the inter-institutional wars for money and power over those other US institutions who are competing with them for money and political power.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Brian T Aug 31, 2018

I just heard that Sir James Mirrlees has died, with an obituary in the FT: https://www.ft.com/content/9782dc2a-ac5c-11e8-89a1-e5de165fa619 . Mirrlees was a pioneer in the study of asymmetric information, for which he is a Nobel laureate (1996), and a mentor to Prof. Stiglitz and may others.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Per Kurowski Aug 29, 2018

Regulators distorted credit with risk weighted capital requirements for banks based on perceived risk of assets, and not on the risks of how those assets are perceived (the conditional probabilities), and Stiglitz calls that “under-regulation of the economy”?
http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2016/04/here-are-17-reasons-for-why-i-believe.html
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
ian.pharmacist Aug 29, 2018

Totally disagree with this. In 1920 Warren Harding faced a sudden collapse in the US economy but he did nothing (mainly due to the fact he had a stroke and his wife was running things).GDP collapsed 12% but within 18 months we had the "roaring twenties". This Keynesian view of things is just a fantasy. You cannot print demand but you can print bubbles and now have a bubble in bonds, stocks, tech and real estate thanks to QE and ZIRP. Many thanks Joseph!
- Barry Rosenfeld Sep 2, 2018
  
  Try not to confuse Harding with Wilson. Harding did not become POTUS until March 4, 1921. Then there was Tea Pot Dome, etc., and he followed Wilson.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Sergio Paradiz Aug 29, 2018

I belong to the group of those disappointed by Stiglitz’s blindness by ideology. And this article proves oves again. When he writes”crucial mistake in 2009 in not pursuing a larger, longer, better-structured, and more flexible fiscal stimulus. Had it done so, the economy’s rebound would have been stronger, and there would have been no talk of secular stagnation” he ignores he was a critic of the Fed policy at the time.
Stiglitz answer to :”Will growth rates in coming years be as strong as they were in the past?” Is : “ That, of course, depends on the pace of technological change”. I’m lost. First claiming that secular stagnation was due to poor government policies, it now seems there are other factors that can influence growth which are beyond government intervention. Of course anyone reading this articles understands this is only another opportunity for Stiglitz to have a go at Trump. But there are so many vulnerabilities in Trump’s policies that it is counterproductive to use this type of rhetoric.
- Robert O'Regan Sep 2, 2018
  
  I suggest that your last sentence is a bit of an undocumented cheap shot at Trump as well.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Anony Mous Aug 30, 2018
  
  Please note that Dr. Stiglitz referred to fiscal, not monetary, stimulus. His critique of Fed Policy is entirely consistent with his desire for greater fiscal stimulus.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jerry hough Aug 28, 2018

I read this with a feeling of exhilaration. First, I agree with it, but more important, an old hero of mine is returning to his serious work, not anti-Trump ranting. And some day he may even mention that it is Trump who has adopted fiscal stimulus.

What I would like to see is more of an analysis of another aspect of Trump's program. Obama-Citigroup kept zero interest rates--really negative interest rates-- for an enormous length of time. It became conventional wisdom that it hyped stock prices with things like buying back stocks and M & A and came to have almost no effect on the economy,

Trump's team not only consciously provided a fiscal stimulus, but is normalizing interest rates. What is the interaction? Is the fiscal stimulus a substitute to prevent the normalization from being a drag? What happens when the 10-year
year hits 4-5% with relatively tame inflation? What, if anything, should be done with all the bought-back bonds or was that just a fiction?

I hope Stiglitz will move to an analysis of this interaction and to question, what should be done? What ensures that more goes to raise real wages and reduce inegalitarianism? Replacement of social security taxes with a VAT? Change the supply-demand relationship in labor by a sharp reduction in immigration and outsourcing?
- Paul Friesen Aug 30, 2018
  
  Stimulus is required when there is a lack of demand. When the economy is booming, it's time to pay down the debt in preparation for the next time we need stimulus. Running constant deficits is the way economies get into long-term trouble (especially if they have been borrowing in foreign currency.)
  - Oeufs Bruns Sep 2, 2018
    
    Pay down US sovereign debt by any significant amount and a depression will follow. Each and every time.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jose Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio Aug 28, 2018

I wanted to write a comment under the Joseph E. Stiglish’s Jul 30, 2018, article “The US is at Risk of Losing a Trade War with China,” but it had to many comments already. That has been my experience with the great majority of articles that attract me, for example, in Spain’s EL País newspaper, which translated it as "EE UU y la guerra comercial," with the subtititle "Trump tiene un problema, pero no es con China. Está en su propia casa: el escaso nivel de ahorro," published by El Pais.

Adding today’s numbers in brackets, next is a translation of my comment that I understand applies here as well: “How weird. The English version of this article currently has 144 [148] comments and this having passed 10 hours has only one [3 with mine]. Will it make sense to say that Stiglitz has a simplistic model of globalization and anti-globalization? Using Ockham's Razor, I have been suggesting an up-to-date global conceptual model that divides globalization into bright and dark, and which calls DeGlobalization what Stiglitz's calls anti-globalization. That changes the current situation in that we are mssing the Bright Globalization to help emerge an institutional innovation, since the world is dominated by obsolete institutions of the Dark Globalization and its reaction with the DeGlobalization.
- Michael Public Aug 29, 2018
  
  I am with you that globalisation needs to be divided into dark and light varieties, as do many other grand concepts bandied around here.
  
  I caution against referencing Occum's Razor as it in essence is a lazy principle - the world is as simple or complex as it factually is, no more, no less - to say that simple explanations are more likely to be true is in no way supportable.
  - Jose Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio Aug 29, 2018
    
    Thank you for trying. Before responding you in the last paragraph, these preliminary are useful to get a better picture. I have responded twice to VIVEK IYER, who has a comment here already. This is part of what I said to him the second time.
    
    My response is based on an emerging vocabulary as a result of using mainly the Heuristic (lessons learned) Methodology of Systems Architecting. If you go a bit deep into my first comment here, you will see that the UN 'Sustainable Development Goals' were developed by consensus under the Simplistic Globalization Model being used by economist of The Wealth of Nations, when they should be developed to help emerge institutional innovations under the Updated Global Conceptual Model of The Wealth of Globalization.
    
    In one of your very valuable comments, on Aug 23, 2018, you wrote that ” In this field, as elsewhere, 'the best' is the enemy of 'the good' and talk of morality is the enemy of ethical pragmatics.” Next I repeat my selective response to you under that article where I only wrote one comment.
    
    In the third paragraph of my comment, which you can consider as a thought experiment, I wrote “This time I am questioning if the EcoNoMy science that centers its attention on The Wealth of Nations, might need to help emerge the EcoIsOurs profession, like Engineering has grown into Systems Architecting, to center the attention into The [W]ealth of Globalization, which give the opposite understanding on the meaning for the heuristic “'the best' is the enemy of 'the good‘.” That opposite understanding to favor ‘the best’ is due to the Computing Big Shift that enables us to approximate to the Third Degree of Clarity given that the Printing Big Shift is limited to the Second Degree of Clarity.
    
    The rule for selection of a framework is simple: the one chosen should have heuristic and learning power. The globalization and anti-globalization framework have no such heuristic and learning power as needed to address wicked problems. The Bright Globalization, Dark Globalization and DeGlobalization has the heuristic power that systems architecting tell us to, like, "simplify, simplify, simplify," which in this case corresponds to "the principle (attributed to William of Occam) that in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary.“
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/d5GvzIIfr

Le mythe de la stagnation séculaire

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

New Comment

Contact us

Handpicked to read next

Setting the Record Straight on Secular Stagnation

Log in/Register

Le mythe de la stagnation séculaire

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

Handpicked to read next

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification