Two different memes about secular stagnation seem to be circulating in the econoblogosphere recently.
The first says that r < g, or will be in future, therefore the economy is dynamically inefficient, and we need government to fix this problem.
The second says that r > g, or will be in future, therefore inequality is increasing, and we need government to fix this problem.
Is this a moral panic?
[Update: soon after I posted this, Stefan Homburg emailed that he had noticed the same thing. His working paper (pdf) is now online. Stefan's figures 1 and 2 are especially interesting. It is land values that are rising, not capital. Theories of secular stagnation need to pay a lot more attention to land.]
[Make sure you put a space either side of < and > in comments, otherwise Typepad thinks it's a link.]