Obama's Economic Team Frozen in the Headlights, U.S. Economy is in Big Trouble
Economics / Great Depression II Aug 21, 2010 - 05:22 PM GMTBy: Mike_Whitney
 The personal savings rate has risen to 6.4%. When households save, consumer   spending declines and GDP shrinks. The reduction in economic activity can have   serious knock-on effects. It can lead to more layoffs as investment sputters as   aggregate demand flags. If the downturn persists,  asset prices and wages fall   leading to tighter credit, deflation and a deepening slump. The good news is   that the problem can be fixed.
The personal savings rate has risen to 6.4%. When households save, consumer   spending declines and GDP shrinks. The reduction in economic activity can have   serious knock-on effects. It can lead to more layoffs as investment sputters as   aggregate demand flags. If the downturn persists,  asset prices and wages fall   leading to tighter credit, deflation and a deepening slump. The good news is   that the problem can be fixed. 
The government merely needs to increase the   deficits to satisfy the net savings desires of the private sector.  In other   words, the government needs to fill the hole created by the lack of personal   consumption. That's all it takes to keep people employed, reduce the output gap,   and avoid much of the pain from economic contraction. When the economy returns   to trend, government revenues increase and the budget deficits shrink. This   isn't theory; it's the way the system works.
  
  Stimulus works because   stimulus means spending. Spending IS economic activity, so (by necessity) it   increases GDP. Whether it is 'wise' to increase the budget deficits or not is   immaterial. That depends on one's own political orientation. But the fact is,   stimulus works.
  
  The economy is not effected by our opinions or our   political orientation. It's a system. It functions according to the rules which   govern its operation. Investment and spending are the lubricants that keep the   gears in motion. The economy does not distinguish between public and private   spending. It's all the same. If spending and investment are sufficient to   generate growth, then the economy will grow. If spending and investment dry up,   the economy will grind to a halt. Either way, the economy is merely responding   to the amount of stimulus feeding into the system. Policymakers--the Fed and   congress--have now decided to cut off additional stimulus even though the   economy is still weak and all the data has been revised downwards. Conservatives   in the House and senate believe that the budget deficits are too large and that   the government must slash spending. Thus, the economy--which everyone agrees is   weak--is being further battered by the muddled thinking of ideologues. This is   politics; it has nothing to do with economics.
  
  The opponents of stimulus   don't believe that the government should meddle in the markets. They think the   Fed should allow asset prices to tumble, unemployment to skyrocket, and   financial markets to crash. The liquidationist approach is principled, but   shortsighted. There's no need to let the economy crash when steps can be taken   to soften the blow. The government has the means to support the economy until   the private sector repairs its balance sheet and resumes spending. Here's an   excerpt from economist Richard Koo in "The Economist" which helps to explain   what needs to be done:
  
  "The next move for the Fed, a long overdue one   in my view, should be to announce that the US is afflicted with a balance sheet   recession, a rare disease that strikes only after the bursting of a nationwide   debt-financed asset price bubble. With its asset prices collapsing while its   liabilities remain, the private sector is forced to deleverage or minimize debt   even with zero interest rates in order to repair its battered balance sheets.   The Fed should explain that in this type of recession, monetary policy is   largely ineffective because those with negative equity are not interested in   increasing borrowings at any interest rate. The Fed’s continued failure to   explain the exact nature of the disease only increases the public’s expectations   for monetary policy which could lead to a big disappointment later with an   equally serious loss of credibility for the central bank.
  
  Moreover,   during balance sheet recessions the effectiveness of monetary policy actually   depends on the government’s fiscal policy. This is because when the private   sector is deleveraging, money supply shrinks as bank deposits are withdrawn to   pay down debt. The only way to keep money supply from shrinking is for the   public sector to borrow money. Indeed the US money supply grew after 1933,   following the worst balance sheet recession in history, precisely because of   government’s New Deal borrowings. Japan’s money supply never contracted after   1990 in spite of massive private sector deleveraging, also because of government   borrowings." ("What actions should the fed be taking?", The   Economist)
  
  The Fed's resumption of quantitative easing (QE) will not   spark another credit expansion nor will it increase inflation expectations. It   may ignite another stock market rally, but deflationary pressures will continue   to build as households pay-down debt or default on loans they are unable to   service. Private sector deleveraging is ongoing and irreversible. When people   are deep in the red, they will not borrow no matter how low interest rates are.   This is from the New York Fed's "Quarterly Report on Household debt and   Credit":
  
    "As of June 30, 2010, total consumer indebtedness was $11.7   trillion, a reduction of $812 billion (6.5%) from its peak level at the close of   2008Q3, and $178 billion (1.5%) below its March 31, 2010 level. Household   mortgage indebtedness has declined 6.4%, and home equity lines of credit   (HELOCs) have fallen 4.4% since their respective peaks in 2008Q3 and 2009Q1.   Excluding mortgage and HELOC balances, consumer indebtedness fell 1.5% in the   quarter and, after having fallen for six consecutive quarters, stands at $2.31   trillion, 8.4% below its 2008Q4 peak."  
Consumers have reduced   spending by a whopping $812 billion, nearly the same amount as Obama's fiscal   stimulus (ARRA). No wonder the economy is flatlining. Deleveraging is outpacing   growth, which is why congress needs to pass another stimulus bill or the economy   will stumble back into negative territory. 
  
  British economist John   Maynard Keynes spend a great deal of time studying financial markets. He didn't   believe that investors were rational or that markets were self correcting.  He   believed that government had a role to play in mitigating the effects of the   business cycle so  downturns didn't morph into depressions, and depressions into   revolutions. He wanted to refine capitalism--to make it more humane-- because he   believed that capitalism was a better guarantor of personal liberty than the   other systems.  Keynes critics forget that he was a committed capitalist. They   prefer to characterize him as a bumbling Teddy Kennedy-type liberal who believed   that government largesse was the answer to every problem.
  
  Today it is   fashionable to disparage Keynes. His critics tend to label all excessive and   wasteful government spending as "Keynesian". Thus, the TARP bailouts were   "Keynesian". The AIG handouts were "Keynesian". The Fed's multi-trillion dollar   liquidity facilities were "Keynesian". Well-respected academics, historians and   central bankers scorn any form of government assistance as "Keynesian". But the   fact remains, the best way out of a deep slump is fiscal stimulus. Keynes was   right, and that hasn't changed.
  
   To set the record straight: Keynes never   advocated "blank check" bailouts for insolvent financial institutions.  Nor did   he believe that the government should flood the system with easy money so the   economy could lurch from one gigantic asset bubble to the next. The people who   attribute these policies to Keynes are either misinformed or driven by their own   political agenda. Keynes wasn't even a "big spender", in fact, he believed that   when the economy was healthy, the budget should be kept in   surplus.
  
  Keynes understood the destructive power of inflation and took it   seriously. But he also knew that it was absurd to worry about inflation when   asset prices, stock indexes, consumer spending, CPI and bonds yields were all   plunging.  The solution has to fit the problem, and the problem is deflation.   That means the government has to step up when consumers and businesses pull   back.  But that doesn't mean that stimulus is a panacea. It's not; there are   other factors involved. Economic stability requires a balance between supply and   demand, but the outsourcing of high-paying jobs, stagnant wages and rising   unemployment all weaken demand and throw the apparatus off-kilter.  So fiscal   stimulus is not enough. The only way to rebalance the economy is by rebuilding   the middle class and increasing its buying power. That means redistribution via   tax policy and collective bargaining. Keynes saw the flaws in capitalism and   summed it up like this:
  
  “The outstanding faults of the economic society   in which we live are its failure to provide for full employment and its   arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth and incomes.”
  
  Keynes   supported quantitative easing (the Fed's bond purchasing program) as a means of   increasing the money supply, but he also understood its limitations. He knew   that it wouldn't be particularly effective when consumers are trying to recover   from the bursting of a gigantic asset-price bubble. Fiscal stimulus is a much   better way to rev up the economy. It bypasses the privately-owned banking system   altogether and delivers the money to those who will spend it. Japan learned that   fiscal stimulus is the only way to fight deflation. They found out that whenever   they cutoff the fiscal stimulus, the economy plummeted. (Inequality is a big   part of Japan's problems, too. According to the Wall Street journal, "Japan now   ranks roughly 40th in measures of personal income and that the average Japanese   is now poorer that the average citizen of Mississippi.") Ultimately, there's no   way to balance supply and demand when  the greatest portion of the nation's   wealth flows to the upper 1% of the population. This upsets the basic   equilibrium that's needed to keep the economy strong. The more uneven the wealth   distribution, the more government intervention will be required. There's simply   not enough demand to keep the economy operating a full capacity. People are just   too broke.
  
  OBAMA'S ECONOMICS TEAM: "Frozen in the   headlights"
  
Stocks fell sharply on Thursday (Dow down 144pts.) on news   that manufacturing (Philly fed Index) shrank in August beyond analysts   expectations. Nearly every category fell including shipments and new orders. The   Dept of Labor (DOL) also reported that jobless claims rose 12,000 from last week   to an advanced figure of seasonally adjusted initial claims of 500,000. Lastly,   Moody's reports that commercial real estate prices slipped 4% in June. According   to Calculated risk website, "Commercial real estate values are now down 41.3%   from the peak in late 2007." Bond yields on US Treasuries continued to fall on   Thursday's news feeding the fears of a double dip recession. Policymakers at the   Fed, the Treasury, the White House and the Congress continue to look on   impassively while the foundations of the so-called recovery crack before their   very eyes. As the stimulus runs out, unemployment will edge upwards,   deleveraging and debt liquidation will gain momentum, and the economy will   succumb to another vicious contraction. The recession is deepening, but Obama's   economics team is still frozen in the headlights. 
By Mike Whitney
Email: fergiewhitney@msn.com
Mike is a well respected freelance writer living in Washington state, interested in politics and economics from a libertarian perspective.
© 2010 Copyright Mike Whitney - All Rights Reserved Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisors.
|  Mike Whitney Archive | 
© 2005-2022 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.
	

 
  
 
	