Interesting read about the economy.

toomanymustangs

Philosopher
Established Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
598
Location
Great Falls, Montana
My Buisness teacher gave this to us to read for the test.
It came out of the Wall Street journal


"How Much Worse Can the U.S. Economy Get?
Editorial Page, Wall Street Journal, December 2, 2005-12-02

During a quarter century of analyzing and forecasting the economy, I have never seen anything like this. No matter what happens, no matter what data are released, no matter which way markets move, a pall of pessimism hangs over the economy.

It is amazing. Everything is negative. When bond yields rise, it is considered bad for the housing market and the consumer. But if bond yields fall and the yield curve narrows toward inversion, that is bad too, because an inverted yield curve could signal a recession.

If housing data weaken, as they did on Monday when existing home sales fell, well that is a sign of a bursting housing bubble. If housing data strengthen, as they did on Tuesday when new home sales rose, that is negative because the Fed may raise rates further. If foreigners buy our bonds, we are not saving for ourselves. If foreigners do not buy our bonds, interest rates could rise. If wages go up, inflation is coming. If wages go down, the economy is in trouble.

This onslaught of negative thinking is clearly having an impact. During the 2004 presidential campaign, when attacks on the economy were in full force, 36% of Americans thought we were in recession. One year later, even though unemployment has fallen from 5.5% to 5%, and real GDP has expanded by 3.7%, the number who think a recession is underway has climbed to 43%.

This is a real conundrum. It is true, bad things have happened. Katrina wiped out a major city and many people are still displaced. GM has announced massive layoffs. Underfunded pension plans are being handed off to the government. Oil, gasoline and natural gas prices have soared. Despite it all, the U.S. economy continues to flourish.

One would think that this would give pouting pundits reason to question their pessimism. After all, politicians who bounce back from scandal get monikers such as "the comeback kid." Athletes who overcome personal tragedy or sickness to achieve greatness are called "heroes." This is a quintessential American tradition, and the economy is following the script perfectly. The more hardship it faces, the more resilient it appears. The list of pessimistic forecasts that have been proved wrong grows by the day.

The trade deficit was supposed to cause a collapse in the dollar; but the dollar is up 10% versus the euro in the past eight months. The budget deficit was supposed to push up interest rates; yet the 10-year Treasury yield, at 4.5%, is well below its 2000 average yield of 6% when the U.S. faced surpluses as far as the eye could see.

Sharp declines in consumer confidence and rising oil prices were supposed to hurt retail sales; but holiday shopping is strong. Many fear that China is stealing our jobs, but new reports suggest that U.S. manufacturers are so strong that a shortage of skilled production workers has developed. And since the Fed started hiking interest rates 16 months ago, 3.5 million new jobs and $750 billion in additional personal income have been created. Stocks are also up, which according to pundits was unlikely as long as the Fed was hiking rates.

So, where is all of the pessimism coming from? Some say that the anxiety is warranted. The theory goes like this: Globalization and technology are a massive force that levels the playing field. Because capital and ideas can move freely around the world, foreign wages will move up, while U.S. wages fall, until some sort of equilibrium is found. It's a compelling story. After all, real average hourly earnings in the U.S. fell 1.6% during the 12 months ending in October.

However, there are numerous reasons to believe that this statistic is not giving an accurate picture of the economy's health. First, history shows that when oil prices rise sharply, real earnings take a temporary hit. As a result, a snapshot of inflation-adjusted earnings data in the wake of Katrina is misleading.

Moreover, for the past 30 years, real average hourly earnings have declined by an annual average of 0.1%. But this can't possibly reflect reality. In the past 30 years, cell phones and computers have become ubiquitous. Home and auto ownership have climbed. More people dine out; travel; attend sporting events, movies and rock concerts; and join health clubs. Over those same 30 years, real per capita consumption has increased at an average annual rate of 2.3%. Hourly earnings data do not include tips, bonuses, commissions or benefits, and therefore will always lag actual increases in living standards.

Some observers of the current economy, such as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman and former Clinton economic adviser Gene Sperling, argue correctly that globalization is inevitable and, in fact, good. Nonetheless, they focus on those who are hurt by the transitional impact and suggest that government intervene to offset any damage from plant closures or job losses.

But this has never worked. The history of economic progress is one of innovation and change. This "creative destruction" can never be a pain-free experience for every individual involved. The new must replace the old. Attempting to alter this fact of life, and create a utopia where no one experiences pain, has always led to more unhappiness than before. Germany's near 11% unemployment rate and the recent riots in France are the latest evidence of government's inability to successfully fight market forces.

One key reason the U.S. economy has outperformed other industrialized nations, and exceeded its long-run average growth rate during the past two years, is the tax cut of 2003. By reducing taxes on investment, the U.S. boosted growth, which in turn created new jobs that replace those that are lost as the old economy dies. Ireland is also a beautiful example of the power of tax cuts to boost growth and lift living standards.

Economic growth is the only true shock absorber for an economy in transition. To minimize the pain of technological globalization and address the anxiety that these forces are creating, free-market policies must be followed. While tremendous pressures are building to increase government involvement in the economy, it is important that the U.S. stay the course that brought it out of recession.

To meet the challenges that lie ahead, a vibrant, flexible and expanding economy is absolutely necessary. While it is tempting to think that government programs are necessary to address anxiety, in reality only the free market can successfully navigate today's rough waters. In the end, it will be the private sector, not the public sector, that quells all this anxiety and creates the opportunities so many desire."
 

05 Roush

Roushcharged
Established Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
16,685
Location
Front Range
Interesting read.

However, our economy is in real trouble. Why? Because our quality of living is the same even though many people are working harder (like twice as hard)...and women are working full time.

How's that for putting things in perspective??
 

Friendchicken

New Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Messages
1,885
"This onslaught of negative thinking is clearly having an impact. During the 2004 presidential campaign, when attacks on the economy were in full force, 36% of Americans thought we were in recession. One year later, even though unemployment has fallen from 5.5% to 5%, and real GDP has expanded by 3.7%, the number who think a recession is underway has climbed to 43%."

Guess what happens when you dig into coffers and pour out money to support a war? You borrow against the future to send men/woment off to fight. Spending goes up because of job certainty. Job roles are opened up after people head off to fight and the unemployed get jobs.

Great huh? Your seeing less unemployed, people are spending money which increases product demand spurring production.

Sorry my friend. This is a recipe for a depressed economy when:
1) the war ends and those who had left employment to fight overseas, see their replacments in their old job they left.

2) People leaving the military to go back to the lives they once had hold off spending till something comes up. Loss of financial security.

3) tighter purse strings and more competition for jobs/wages/benifits.

4) less production cause spending is down

5) layoffs cause production demand has fallen

6) Ooops.. we now have to pay back all that money that was collected to fund the war.

7) jump into bed with a middle eastern country to have them invest in "Amerika".

8) piss off another middle eastern country for making a "deal with the Devil"

9) go to war and elimiate our new "friends" enemies.

10) explain why it was necessary to spend tax dollars on a war instead of investing in the more dire situation facing people like education, policing, health care and saving jobs that get exported to india, mexico and places unknown.
 

Friendchicken

New Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Messages
1,885
Also,

When you are looking at economics, its not about seeing values rise and fall that is important. It's being able to predict and forcast based on past occurences and trends. Economists, banks, and moneywatchers really don't get upset with large sweeps or changes to the value of money that floats in the market. It's the anomalies that get their panties all bunched up cause they no longer can forcast who will make money tomorrow or the next day, when people who pay them for these analysis expect them to be right.

It's like the weather channel. You KNOW the sun will come up tomorrow and the moon will come up at night, but what happens when there is an eclipse? All kinds of paranoia and foracsts of "recession" or "depression".

And if you know anything about the economy, any mis-step will cause the spiral of the economy into a downward turn and steps to "right the ship" can make it sink even faster. Even if the economy starts moving to a positive slope, you can't take a chance that it rise too fast or else the market won't have time to adjust (john smith sees the price or oranges go up, so he raises his before knowing what the market adjusted price should be, and then jim bean sees john up his price and moves his prices up too).

My take on the economy? It will be fine in most markets for the first few years, but in about 3-4 years from now is gonna see some rough spots as the US dollar loses ground to the world markets and America is not such a great trading partner cause they want to support unions and initiate programs to keep the business at "home" for the American workers, and sever trading relationships with China, Canada and Europe.
 

Users who are viewing this thread



Top