Registered? Please log in below.
New? Please register.
Here are some reasons why.
Feeling depressed about the economy?: Then jump, you... er, flubbers.
UC Berkeley economist and former Clinton Treasury Department official Brad DeLong suggests that the economy could get a lot more depressing before Happy Days Are Here Again:
For 2 1/4 years now I have been saying that there is no chance of a repeat of the Great Depression or anything like it--that we know what to do and how to do it and will do it if things turn south.
I don't think I can say that anymore. In my estimation the chances of another big downward shock to the U.S. economy--a shock that would carry us from the 1/3-of-a-Great-Depression we have now to 2/3 or more--are about 5%. And it now looks very much as if if such a shock hits the U.S. government will be unable to do a d----- thing about it. (Bowdlerization in the original.)
Yikes! But you think that sounds alarming? Get a load of this dire assessment from the Prudent Bear's Martin Hutchinson (via Iain Murray at the Corner):
Click "read more" below for the rest of this post.
The rise in the gold price above $1,100 per ounce last week is a pretty good indicator that something has changed. For 18 months, the gold price had been in a trading range topping out around $1,000. It has now broken out decisively from that range. The opportunity for the world's central banks to change policy and affect the economic outcome has been lost. The world economy is now locked on to an undeviating track towards another train wreck...
As was demonstrated by the housing bubble of 2004-06, modest rises in interest rates are not sufficient to stop a bubble once it is well under way. Given the Fed's recent track record, it is most unlikely that we will get any more than modest and very reluctant interest-rate rises. Even if inflation is moving at a brisk pace by the latter part of next year, the price rises will be explained away, or possibly massaged out of the figures as happened in the early part of 2008. Hence the bubble will inexorably move to its denouement, at which point gold will probably be north of $3,000 an ounce and oil well north of $150 per barrel. Even though there will be no supply/demand reason why oil should get to those levels, and gold has almost no genuine demand at all, the weight of money behind those commodities in a speculative situation will push their prices inexorably upwards, beyond all reason until something intervenes to stop it.
At some point, probably before the end of 2010, the bubble will burst. The deflationary effect on the U.S. economy of $150 plus oil will overwhelm the modest forces of genuine economic expansion. The Treasury bond market will collapse, overwhelmed by the weight of deficit financing. Once again, the banking system will be in deep trouble. The industrial sector, beyond the largest and most liquid companies and the extractive industries, will in any case have remained in recession – it is notable that, in spite of the Fed's frenzy of activity, bank lending has fallen $600 billion in the last year. Unemployment, which will probably enter the second downturn at around current levels, will spike further upwards. The dollar will probably not collapse, but only because it will have been declining inexorably in the intervening year, to give a euro value of $2 and a yen value of 60 to 65 yen to the dollar...
The danger in those years will be that Ben Bernanke will attempt yet again to refloat the U.S. economy through inflation, buying government debt to fund the deficit and forcing short term rates well below the inflation rate. This danger is exacerbated by the Obama administration's insouciance about deficits. Ben Bernanke on his own (and his predecessor Alan Greenspan) bears a large share of responsibility for the 2008 crash, but the Bernanke/Obama combination is potentially even more dangerous. If expansionary monetary and fiscal policies are pursued regardless of market signals, the U.S. will head towards Weimar-style trillion-percent inflation. That would make the government's position easier as its mountain of Treasury debt became worthless, but devastate everybody else's savings and impoverish the American people as Weimar impoverished 1920s Germany.
As I said, a train wreck. Probability of arrival: close to 100%. Time of arrival: around the end of 2010, or possibly a bit earlier. And at this stage, there's very little anyone can do about it; the definitive rise of gold above $1,000 marked the point of no return.
I'm no economist, but that sounds very bad -- greater than Great Depression bad. (Murray notes, by way of introduction, that Hutchinson was "one of the few financial journalists to see the crash coming well in advance." Lovely.)
For his part, DeLong offers a few prescriptions for averting disaster, but suggests that no good solution is viable because the political climate is even worse than the economic one. Clearly, we are doomed. Make of all this what you will. As for me, I'm keeping my fingers crossed for 2012... and I don't mean the election.
Comments
Well...
...that's certainly dispiriting.
Shocking and jumping you ...
... I won't say it.
What I will do, is ask: Am I reading that wrong, or did DeLong say there is a 5 percent chance of us dipping into almost a full Great Depression. If so ... back off the ledge.
Re: Back off the ledge
Read the Prudent Bear thing. All of it, not just the excerpts I posted. Then hide your belts and shoelaces and stock up on canned goods and sharp, pointy sticks.
Economic Predictions
Now, it's hard to tell exactly what is going to arrive with near certainty within the next 13 months (gold over $3k? Oil over $150? Trillion percent inflation?) but I'm wary of anyone who makes such a bold claim as "close to 100%" when making an economic prediction that far out. Hell, even predicting what will happen in the next quarter is extremely difficult. And if you read the first person Ben quoted, he says the risk of a "2/3 Great Depression" is only 5%. So, who are we to believe? "Close to 100%" that we all go broke and have to eat our shoes, or "about 5%" that we will have only 2/3 of the Great Depression.
All this does is prove the adage, "Ask 10 economists the same question and you will get 10 different answers."
Or how about this one? "Economists are pessimists: they've predicted 8 of the last 3 depressions." ;)
Heh.
Not the "D" word I was expecting. ;o/
"Don't confuse political savvy with competence or principles." -- RobbL, 2009
Three Out of Five
I always liked the adage, if you ask three economists a question you get five answers. Or, as Reagan is reported to have said, if the game Trivial Pursuit were designed for economists, it would have 100 questions and 3000 answers.
Generally I like Paul Krugman, though. He seems solid.
Re: Krugman
"Seems" is the operative word. Might wanna rethink that.
And that's what I found with a quick "Paul Krugman debunk" Google search. More here from people like Donald Luskin, who have made a sidelight career out of debunking that guy.
Just Keep Him on Economics...
... or Krugman quickly goes from "solid" to about "Lyndon LaRouche" on the opinion scale
.
"Don't confuse political savvy with competence or principles." -- RobbL, 2009
Krugman and Luskin
Don't know much about either, but anyone who disagrees with Jim Cramer (i.e. Luskin) can't be all that bad.
Krugman
I read Krugman's books The Return of Depression Economics (economics, of course) and The Conscience of a Liberal (farther afield) and liked them both. The former was lucid, engaging, well-researched, and matched what I know and have seen in the news. I read the edition previous to his updating it for 2008 and found it really worthwhile -- it gave me the idea that economics actually is a valid and useful field of study. Which I didn't entirely believe before. He definitely gives a strong idea of economics as a field studying human behavior: At its best, economics seems to be a set of "when humans are in this situation, they tend to do this" observations. Which is worthwhile. Sort of a branch of psychology.
I don't quite remember the latter aside from thinking it was a good book that preached to my choir of one, at least. I agreed with most of it. Beyond that I'm not sure what was in it. It was a couple of years ago, I think. My memory isn't what it used to be, as far as I remember.
Cramer
I'm pretty sure Jim Cramer disagrees with himself.
As far as Krugman goes, if you want to understand how deficit spending helps during a recession, he's the guy to read.
I have no doubt Krugman would nod in agreement
... with my very Keynesian Econ 101 professor, who professed that the deficit is not a problem because we owe it to ourselves.
Not Quite
Actually, that's not quite how it works, and that's sort of the point. Anyway, the positives of deficit spending aren't so much about who owes how much to whom but how it works with the money supply.
A lot of people -- and this is slightly off topic -- have this problem with national budgets because they think countries are just like really big households and therefore the same principles apply. Thus I often hear people saying that American deficit spending is just like a family running up their credit cards, buying things they can't afford. In fact finance at the level of nations doesn't work anything like that and the analogy is completely false.
But that's beside the point when it comes to what Keynes and Krugman are talking about with deficit spending.
Post new comment