Normally, to show where we are in the Great Recession, Krugman graphs "real employment," the ratio of employed people to eligible population. He considers this a much more accurate view of actual unemployment than the headline unemployment number, which has been tweaked by past presidents beyond recognition. (I agree.)
But this time, his graph of where-we-are shows GDP — in particular the ratio of actual GDP to the CBO projection of potential GDP consistent with full employment. That graph looks like this:
![](http://library.vu.edu.pk/cgi-bin/nph-proxy.cgi/000100A/http/web.archive.org/web/20120921014915im_/http:/=2f1.bp.blogspot.com/-3RM6P00S8Ks/TlkiY902KJI/AAAAAAAAADs/TG_9pawxX48/s400/krugman_GDP-to-potential_082611krugman1-blog480.jpg)
A few things to notice: (1) This is a ratio, so "1.00" on the vertical scale up near the top is the place where the two values are equal. It's the 100% mark, the place at which Real GDP equals Potential GDP (as defined).
(2) The chart starts at 2001, so the initial drop you see from 101% to 98% is the Clinton tech bubble bursting, followed by a slow recovery.
(3) About that 2001–2007 recovery: As we noted here, most of the income growth in that recovery was captured by the upper 1% of the population.
The exact number: $2 of every $3 went into their pockets. For the upper 1%, that growth was rain from heaven, which the rest of us didn't see. (Note that GDP growth is more than just income growth, but income growth is a large part.) I'll have more to say about the upper 1% — who they are and how they live — shortly.
(4) And finally, notice the tail. If that doesn't look like a double-dip starting, I don't know what does.
The brief rise during 2010 is the inadequate stimulus doing its feeble best. (Note that the 2010 peak of just below 94% is far short of the post-Clinton low of 98%. Another indication that we needed much more stimulus than we got.)
This ratio might be a worthwhile metric to keep an eye on. I hope the Professor keeps it updated.
GP Read the rest of this post...