NP Rank:
Mainstream media starting to understand depth of US financial crisis
The ominous predictions of Nouriel Roubini are now being picked up by the mainstream media. This from Roubini's blog:
Nouriel Roubini | Mar 11, 2008
In his Wednesday Financial Times' column Martin Wolf thoughtfully discusses my recent argument that financial losses of the order of $1 trillion (7% of GDP) may be only a lower bound and that such losses may end up being as high as $1.7 trillion or even $2.7 trillion during this systemic financial crisis.
I agree with him that the highest estimates are "excessively pessimistic". They were provided as a way to show that, at this point, losses of the order of $1 trillion are only a lower bound - not an upper bound - to financial sector losses, not to argue that $2.7 trillion is "the" most likely outcome. Indeed, the most interesting development in the last few weeks is that estimates of financial losses of the order of $1 trillion - that only a month ago were considered way too pessimistic if not borderline crazy - have now become mainstream. As Wolf put it:
"On March 7, Goldman Sachs economists published an even higher estimate of mortgage-related losses, at $500bn, along with $656bn in other losses, for a total of $1,156bn. The mainstream has caught up."
So to paraphrase "The Devil Wears Prada" now $1 trillion "is the new size 6!", i.e. the new mainstream benchmark for expected financial losses. The mainstream has indeed caught up very fast.
But says Roubini, the popular misconception in the media is that what we are witnessing is a credit crunch. The assumption being that nobody is willing to loan out money. The truth of the matter isn't that there is a shortage of willing lenders but that the solvency of key players in the financial system is now in question.
we have gotten to the point that we need to pray that the Fed can rescue the economy and financial markets. But as argued here last summer the problems in the financial markets are not just of illiquidity that Fed policy can address; they are rather of credit and insolvency that no amount of monetary easing and liquidity injections can ease.
This means we may be in deeper trouble than we thought. The Fed can always make borrowing money more attractive by lowering interest rates and the cost of borrowing but it is another thing entirely to turn something from a money losing operation into something that is in the black.
Crowd Power
-
Graphic Knight
Detroit, Michigan, United States -
ursonate
Austin, Texas, United States






Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (1)
at 22:02 on March 12th, 2008
The banks obviously lent money out to people who shouldn't be getting it. It was also (obviously now) a bad move to repackage those loans as securities (sometimes, due to the packaging techniques, as A-type debt) to be sold to investors. But lets not get too worked up over this.
Every once in a while economies go through recessions. That's all that this is. If the Fed wants to make it worse than all they have to do is flood the market with more money. If, on the other hand, they want to do something good for the market they will maintain the current interest rates.
In my opinion, the only thing that the government can do now to help stave off a serious recession/depression is to lower individual and corporate tax rates. As it stands right now, America has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. If we want our economy to continue to be the best in the world we need to create an environment where business can succeed. Lowering their tax rate by just 10% will definitely lead to significant growth in the economy and increased business spending.
Even with trillion dollar losses our economy is still growing (however slowly that may be) and there is a fifty percent chance we won't get into a recession (which, technically speaking, is two + consecutive quarters of a negative GDP growth) according to economists.
Good story.