PDA

View Full Version : 18 months to the bottom...can we make it?



CubeDoctor
04-23-2009, 08:57 PM
http://how-to-be-rich-and-happy.blogspot.com/2009/04/long-odds-three-scenarios-for-economys.html
by David Wessel

There is no doubt where the economy is now. "By any measure, this downturn represents by far the deepest global recession since the Great Depression," the International Monetary Fund declared Wednesday.

But there's more than the usual uncertainty about where it is going. The key is the U.S. Even though its slice of the world economy is smaller than it once was, it's still huge. The U.S. led the world into the abyss, and it will lead the world economy out of it.

But how fast and when?

The alphabet can help to imagine the possibilities and the path of the economy. There's the letter V: the kind of quick rebound that usually follows a deep recession. Or U: a longer recession and slow recovery. There is L: years of painfully slow growth. And W: a temporary upturn as the economy feels the jolt of fiscal stimulus that quickly wears off. Finally, there's the big D, not the shape but another Great Depression.

With history a guide, consider three starkly different scenarios.

The V

The late Victor Zarnowitz, a student of the business cycle, had a rule: "Deep recessions are almost always followed by steep recoveries." The mild recession of the early 1990s and early 2000s were followed by mild recoveries. But the U.S. economy grew faster than a 6% pace in the four quarters after the deep 1973-75 recession and faster than a 7.75% pace after the even deeper 1980-82 downturn.

"In deep recessions," says Michael Mussa of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, "there is usually a growing sense of gloom as the recession deepens." Then the forces that triggered recession -- say, plunging home prices -- abate. The adrenaline of tax cuts and government spending kicks in. With inventories so lean, the slightest uptick in demand prompts a sharp increase in production, and the natural dynamism of capitalism reasserts itself.

"Experience suggests all of this should work, and I believe it will," Mr. Mussa predicts. Governments have administered huge doses of fiscal and monetary stimulus. Home-building and car-buying are so low they can't fall much further. Many consumers shy away from buying because they're frightened, not broke, and that state of mind can change quickly and liberate pent-up demand.

But the Federal Reserve caused the deep recessions of the 1970s and 1980s when it put its foot on the brake to stop inflation; it ended them when it let up. This time, Fed has its foot to the floor and the economy is still slowing. And so much stock-market and housing wealth has evaporated that a quick turn in consumer spirits seems unlikely. Plus, the repair of the banks remains far from complete, restraining lending.

The odds of the V: 15%.

The Big D

If one asked a roomful of economists two years ago to put odds on a repeat of the Great Depression, nearly all would have said zero. In early March, The Wall Street Journal posed the question to about 50 forecasters -- defining depression as a decline in output per person of more than 10%, four times worse than the decline the IMF anticipates. On average, they put odds at one in seven; several put them above one in four.

"This is a Depression-sized event," says economic historian Barry Eichengreen of the University of California at Berkeley, citing the global decline in industrial production and world trade. The big difference: In 1929, governments dithered, or worse. In 2009, they've rushed to the rescue.

To go from today's deep recession to a depression something would have to go wrong. It could be a financial catastrophe on the scale of last fall's bankruptcy by Lehman Brothers or another panic-inducing event. Or a crash in the dollar, one that forces interest rates up at just the wrong moment. Or it could be political gridlock that stops governments in the U.S. or Europe from spending enough to fix the banks before a big one fails, or keeps them for doing more on the fiscal or monetary fronts as the economy deteriorates.

Or it could be virulent deflation that pulls down prices and incomes, making debts, which don't fall when prices do, a heavier burden. The textbook remedy is easy money and big government deficits. But so much of that has been tried it's easy to question its efficacy or to imagine resistance around the world to doing.

The odds of the big D: 20%.

The L

For a decade after its stock market and real-estate bubble burst in 1990, Japan bumped along at an annual growth of just 0.5%. It was dubbed the Lost Decade, and it could happen here. The recession ends but the economy plods along, growing too slowly to bring down unemployment for years.

As the IMF observed this week, recoveries following recession caused by financial crises are "typically slower." Those following recessions that occur simultaneously across the globe "have typically been weak." Back in the 1990s, as U.S. banks struggled, the Fed talked a lot about "financial headwinds." Those were zephyrs compared to the gale-force winds that the economy confronts today.

If financial markets stabilize but don't improve steadily, or if housing prices continue to drift down, or if confidence remains shaky, the U.S. economy could languish for a time. American consumers, once known for spending in the face of prosperity or adversity, could finally decide to prepare for retirement by saving more, having just learned that neither 401(k) retirement accounts nor home values rise inexorably. And the U.S. can't count on increasing exports, the solution when emerging-market economies run into financial trouble and the reason Japan didn't do even worse in the 1990s. The rest of the world is in no shape to buy.

An unfolding depression could scare Congress to act boldly, but the L is less ominous -- and perhaps more likely as a result. There would be months when the economy appeared to be strengthening so the temptation to wait-and-see would be strong.

Put the odds of the L at 55%. That adds to 90%. So put 10% odds on the U, less pleasant than the euphoric V but far less painful than a Lost Decade. That's the rough consensus of economic forecasters; it means U.S. unemployment grows for another year and a half.

Bottom line: The odds favor a long slog.

# 9
04-24-2009, 12:01 PM
It may well be a repeat of what happened to Japan. Obama has been a genius at drying up credit. Combine that with the threat of high taxes for high earners and you have the perfect recipe for very low growth. Doing both at the same time is stupid.

The tricky part is T-Bills. If the Chinese follow through on their threat not to purchase T-Bills we and the world are in serious trouble.

CubeDoctor
04-24-2009, 01:48 PM
It may well be a repeat of what happened to Japan. Obama has been a genius at drying up credit. Combine that with the threat of high taxes for high earners and you have the perfect recipe for very low growth. Doing both at the same time is stupid.

The tricky part is T-Bills. If the Chinese follow through on their threat not to purchase T-Bills we and the world are in serious trouble.
I do not believe anyone can blame President Obama for “drying up credit.” He did indeed inherit the problem. Has he taken steps to make it better? We will see.

I posted this article because I believe the bottom is 18 months away as was the author’s opinion. He also believes unemployment is going to rise to levels that most of us have not seen in our lifetimes. I am structuring my business decisions on the 18 month to the bottom theory.

This scenario will be rough for a lot of people and we should help those less fortunate than us. The question remains, “can we make it” through these hard times?

Obama is making some decisions I see as progressive. Some concern me; however, he was elected by the people. The majority voted for progressive ideas so we will find out what the true meaning of the word is.

# 9
04-24-2009, 02:17 PM
Obama is making some decisions I see as progressive. Some concern me; however, he was elected by the people. The majority voted for progressive ideas so we will find out what the true meaning of the word is.

If by "progressive" you mean socialist, then you're correct.

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/obamas-leap-to-socialism-2009-04-21.html


President Obama showed his hand this week when The New York Times

This seemingly insignificant change is momentous. It means that the federal government will control all of the major banks and financial institutions in the nation. It means socialism.

The Times dutifully dressed up the Obama plan as a way to avoid asking Congress for more money for failing banks. But the implications of the proposal are obvious to anyone who cares to look.

When the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) intervention was first outlined by the Bush administration, it did not call for any transfer of stock, of any sort, to the government. The Democrats demanded, as a price for their support, that the taxpayers “get something back” for the money they were lending to the banks. House Republicans, wise to what was going on, rejected the administration’s proposal and sought, instead, to provide insurance to banks, rather than outright cash. Their plan would, of course, not involve any transfer of stock. But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) undercut his own party’s conservatives and went along with the Democratic plan, ensuring its passage.

But to avoid the issue of a potential for government control of the banks, everybody agreed that the stock the feds would take back in return for their money would be preferred stock, not common stock. “Preferred” means that these stockholders get the first crack at dividends, but only common stockholders can actually vote on company management or policy. Now, by changing this fundamental element of the TARP plan, Obama will give Washington a voting majority among the common stockholders of these banks and other financial institutions. The almost 500 companies receiving TARP money will be, in effect, run by Washington.

And whoever controls the banks controls the credit and, therefore, the economy. That’s called socialism.

CubeDoctor
04-24-2009, 02:27 PM
#9 wrote:

“If by "progressive" you mean socialist, then you're correct.”

Others on the blab have tried to put words in my mouth. I said “progressive ideas.”

Socialism has a whole different meaning.

If indeed the government attempts to control the banks, and succeed, then possibly President Obama’s “progressive ideas” are a step towards a Socialist form of government. I assume you think that is his plan?

# 9
04-24-2009, 02:45 PM
#9 wrote:


If indeed the government attempts to control the banks, and succeed, then possibly President Obama’s “progressive ideas” are a step towards a Socialist form of government. I assume you think that is his plan?

I hope he is smarter than that. But I would not be surprised. He doesn't listen very well. I predict a short honeymoon. We'll see on the 4th of July how Americans trust their new President.

rikki
04-24-2009, 02:56 PM
Stimulus spending on renewable energy and energy efficiency is the ideal approach for getting a strong rebound. Not only does the spending provide short-term help, it also results in sustained savings for energy consumers. Do you know any energy consumers? Furthermore, the shift to cleaner energy will lower health-care spending and reduce other costs our slovenly crony capitalism has externalized from markets and imposed on society. Progress toward energy independence will decouple us from the unstable regions that produce oil, reducing the need for expensive foreign entanglements.

It's clear Obama has the right recipe for rebound, the lingering questions have more to do with how much damage we will have to rebound from. How badly did the quants botch their equations? How much will default swaps and investment gambles amplify the damage of predatory lending? How sick have we made the oceans? How much have we destabilized the climate? How much will we have to spend in Iraq and Afghanistan before the Bush Folly finally comes to a close?

It's the depth and slope of the downstroke that will determine the speed and shape of the recovery.

NeilMcCauley
04-24-2009, 04:12 PM
If you watch the S&P you'll see that the recovery has started.

Insiders are speculating that everything will be "right side up" by 2012.

But the 'people' are still scared and that might be a big hill to climb.

CubeDoctor
04-24-2009, 04:15 PM
“We'll see on the 4th of July how Americans trust their new President.”


#9
I was planning to go to the Gulf Coast on the 4th of July. Do I need to stay home on the compound and dig in?
Do you know something I don’t?

rikki
I have really missed you dude.

Some spending by government during a recession along with tax cuts and lower interest rates in the past have accelerated the recovery. This is more than some spending and interest rates are still about as low as they can be.

We should have started investing in cleaner energy from sources other than the Middle East a long time ago.

I still believe regulated capitalism is the best system.

We will have to go a lot further than cleaner air and water to make our society healthier. Most of our bad health is self inflicted.

“It's clear Obama has the right recipe for rebound” (It really is more respectful to call him President Obama.)

I am not sure I agree with that statement but I do not have any better ideas and I sure would not want his job.

Why do some people have to waste time assigning blame to people? It is acts by groups of people that create situations. If this “recipe for rebound” does not work will it be the “Obama Folly?”

# 9
04-24-2009, 04:58 PM
“We'll see on the 4th of July how Americans trust their new President.”


#9
I was planning to go to the Gulf Coast on the 4th of July. Do I need to stay home on the compound and dig in?
Do you know something I don’t?

I still believe regulated capitalism is the best system.

Why do some people have to waste time assigning blame to people? It is acts by groups of people that create situations. If this “recipe for rebound” does not work will it be the “Obama Folly?”

The 4th of July will be when Obama sees how the American people have responded to his "leadership". Think Tea Parties times 1000.

As far as to what is the answer, the answer is regulated capitalism. Which we had before everyone starting fucking with it. Reagan, Clinton, and Bush the first and second all loved some deregulation.

But the full blown socialism of owning the banks won't help anyone. It will kill investment as other companies worry they are next. BTW, the heavy hand with GM and the other car companies is just stupid. FUD, fear, uncertainty, and doubt, is the great concern. It kills capital formation and it kills markets.

Really dumb. It is up to the people who elected Obama to straighten him out. He will not listen to anyone else.

rikki
04-24-2009, 05:30 PM
If this “recipe for rebound” does not work will it be the “Obama Folly?”

As you pointed out, investments in cleaner energy should have been a higher priority for decades. Countless books have been written on ways to steer our economy toward energy efficiency and renewables. Magazines like The Economist have been advocating for a greener economy for years, and many American businesses have already adopted green policies and seen savings and returns.

President Obama is merely the person who brought these ideas to the Beltway elitists. That remains a significant accomplishment, however, so I don't object to pinning his name and reputation to the success of his green initiatives. If they turn out to be folly, I hope the moniker does not obscure the fact that people like me who have not just advocated a greener economy, but also endorsed Obama and voted for him deserve a share of the blame as well.

CubeDoctor
04-24-2009, 06:32 PM
#9

I drink coffee not tea so I should be cool for the 4th.

We are supposed to have regulated capitalism. I agree with you. The politicians from both sides have been screwing us up.

CubeDoctor
04-24-2009, 06:49 PM
As you pointed out, investments in cleaner energy should have been a higher priority for decades. Countless books have been written on ways to steer our economy toward energy efficiency and renewables. Magazines like The Economist have been advocating for a greener economy for years, and many American businesses have already adopted green policies and seen savings and returns.

President Obama is merely the person who brought these ideas to the Beltway elitists. That remains a significant accomplishment, however, so I don't object to pinning his name and reputation to the success of his green initiatives. If they turn out to be folly, I hope the moniker does not obscure the fact that people like me who have not just advocated a greener economy, but also endorsed Obama and voted for him deserve a share of the blame as well.
If President Obama’s policies fail, I would expect he would try a different approach. That is one thing to be said for progressive thinking, it is more “flexible” than a strict conservative position. That would be why I think more moderate than a lot of my conservative friends.

I would never link President Obama’s attempt to revive the economy, using as a tool, the greener economy or more efficient less dependant energy with a failed fiscal policy. The goals you advocate are important under any administration and any financial situation. I would not however want to destroy the economy attempting to reach these noble goals. We are aphids on mother earth and will have an impact as long as humans exist. We could definitely do better at managing the earth, our environment and our resources.

I try not to assign blame to people but rather to policies.

rikki
04-25-2009, 06:44 PM
It is up to the people who elected Obama to straighten him out. He will not listen to anyone else.

You say that as if your side has contributed something worth listening to, when all you've really got is degenerate comprehension of the problem and nonexistent solutions.

Scott
04-26-2009, 03:02 AM
If you watch the S&P you'll see that the recovery has started.

Insiders are speculating that everything will be "right side up" by 2012.

But the 'people' are still scared and that might be a big hill to climb.

yea but the stock market is still really unstable one day up the next down.

jsmith
05-05-2009, 01:25 AM
Stimulus spending on renewable energy and energy efficiency is the ideal approach for getting a strong rebound. Not only does the spending provide short-term help, it also results in sustained savings for energy consumers. Do you know any energy consumers? Furthermore, the shift to cleaner energy will lower health-care spending and reduce other costs our slovenly crony capitalism has externalized from markets and imposed on society. Progress toward energy independence will decouple us from the unstable regions that produce oil, reducing the need for expensive foreign entanglements.

It's clear Obama has the right recipe for rebound, the lingering questions have more to do with how much damage we will have to rebound from. How badly did the quants botch their equations? How much will default swaps and investment gambles amplify the damage of predatory lending? How sick have we made the oceans? How much have we destabilized the climate? How much will we have to spend in Iraq and Afghanistan before the Bush Folly finally comes to a close?

Oh, God, is there anything these hard leftists won't blame on Boooosh or their own country?
"How sick have we made the oceans?" "How much have destabilized the climate?" "How much...blah, blah, blah...."
Can someone please get out the violins and start playing some tear jerkers?

Please, do us all a favor and actually read the report from the 700+ UN scientists who disagree with your "man-made global warming-the sky is falling" crap. Even UN scientists are admitting it now!
C'mon, Rikki, even you have to admit at this point your crowd can't decide if the Earth is cooling, warming, or staying the same, so you have to call it "climate change." Er, most of the thinking-world would call this "weather."

As for fiscal policy, only in the morally topsy-turvy world of the extreme Left can the quadrupling of the deficit within TOTUS's first term provide sustained savings for consumers and a fiscally responsible plan.
For God's sake, Rikki, I hope you haven't procreated. I shudder to think of a young mind being formed by hands such as yours.

I'd love to see your face when you open your utility bill a couple of years from now and realize what you've lobbied for thanks to your ridiculous ideas of what "energy independence" really means. Yes, for God's sake, let's not use our own natural resources, which could possibly sustain us for the next hundred years. Instead, let's continue to buy oil from state-sponsors of terror while we work on creating those nifty windmill-powered cars and sunlight-powered airplanes.

Um, tell us, Rikki, were you at all disturbed by Bush's profligate spending, or did you think it was "necessary" for a "strong rebound"?
I only ask because you seem to be toeing TOTUS's line of, "Ah, ah, ah, my predecessor spent a lot of taxpayer money to bail out private companies...um, er, ah, therefore, ah...um...I had to...um, er...ah...so, I...y'know...let me be very clear...er...as, uh...I've stated before, and...uhhhhh, I had to make Bush look like a fiscal conservative by making you, your children, and...uh...ah...um...ah...generations who haven't been born yet pay for my plans. Thank you. I've answered, like, eight questions. Good night."

Big Picture: after the nationalizing of the auto industry, the nationalizing of the banking industry, the nationalizing of the healthcare industry, and the bowing, scraping, and groveling to terrorist dictators like Chavez and Ahmadinejad, I bet you think America is "on the right track," and "respected in the world," right?

I just want to know if it's hard to go through life being as dumb as you are, Rikki.
No, I mean that seriously.

rikki
05-05-2009, 03:28 PM
C'mon, Rikki, even you have to admit at this point your crowd can't decide if the Earth is cooling, warming, or staying the same, so you have to call it "climate change." Er, most of the thinking-world would call this "weather."


Actually, we know that carbon gases have both cooling effects and warming effects, and the warming effects are stronger than the cooling effects. This matter was settled decades ago, and the only people still talking about it are ideology-addled douchebags who lack the integrity and intellect to confront reality.


Yes, for God's sake, let's not use our own natural resources, which could possibly sustain us for the next hundred years. Instead, let's continue to buy oil from state-sponsors of terror while we work on creating those nifty windmill-powered cars and sunlight-powered airplanes.

Your capacity for completely misunderstanding reality is quite impressive. You are literally arguing against creating a sustainable energy economy by suggesting that we instead sustain our energy economy. You are so fucking stupid it's awesome!

Businessmen all across this nation are switching to the Democratic party because of the failure of Republicans like you to recognize and embrace the economic benefits of energy efficiency and renewable energy. Keep up the good work!

jeffx
05-07-2009, 02:54 AM
Please, do us all a favor and actually read the report from the 700+ UN scientists who disagree with your "man-made global warming-the sky is falling" crap. Even UN scientists are admitting it now!

uh, no... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/may/05/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment)