Rebalancing the world’s economies won't happen overnight, that will take far more time.
A Headline in The New York Times says: "Americans stop buying; trade deficit declines"
"For the first eight months of the year, the United States trade deficit with China is down by about 14 percent or $20 billion, compared with one year ago. The nation's trade deficit with Japan has shrunk by almost 20 percent, and its deficits with Mexico, Canada and the European Union are down more than 40 percent.”
"The huge shift stems mainly from the staggering collapse in trade. With credit markets frozen and Americans facing the highest unemployment in more than 30 years, the United States suddenly stopped shopping overseas at anywhere near the volumes that had become normal."
Meanwhile the feds are trying to get consumers back to spending again. Providing tax rebates, incentives, loans, and bribes. As a result the federal deficit is run three times higher than the previous record. It is estimated to be a $1 trillion deficit, "as far as the eye can see." Putting up at risk a sum of money almost equal to the entire US GDP.
If the consumer credit party is over, and the Baby Boomers are retired, is it possible for US businesses to grow, and prosper again?
Indeed this is possible. America has great businesses with great brands. As the dollar falls it should be able for them to gain global market share in some sectors. However 70% of the economy is consumer spending. Until that changes, the US economy is hostage to US consumer spending. But as long consumers stop consuming, the US economy will not grow. The economy has to be rebalanced to a consumer spending part of around 50% or below.
“America has less than 5% of the world's population. But it consumes more than 20% of the total world's output - as measured by GDP.” Clearly, Americans have done more than their
fair share in shopping. Why not let others take the shopping over?
Indeed in time others will spend more. But rebalancing the world's economies won't happen overnight. Nor even in a couple years. It will take a long, long time and a lot of investment in innovations, new tools, new training, and new technologies and techniques. Until that happens, there won’t be any new economic growth.
Every time finance ministers and heads of state get together they talk about "rebalancing the world economy.” They promise to take steps to make it happen. But so far, the market is doing all the rebalancing work on its own.
And instead of letting nature take her course, allowing
Mr. Market’s hand of capitalism to direct capital to where it is actually needed, the heavy hand of government blocks the process of correction.
Credit is still contracting. As Reuters reports that "small US firms
face credit squeeze."
In theory, a genuine recovery in the United States could be led by exports. A cheaper dollar, and a cheaper workforce, expressed in global terms, would make the United States a better competitor.
But even a cheaper dollar is not guaranteed. Consumers may have stopped borrowing, but the US government borrows more than ever. This borrowing, in US dollars, increases demand for greenbacks and may actually sustain the dollar at a higher level than it should be. The feds' appetite for borrowing could also force up interest rates, further restricting small businesses' access to easy credit.
There is a big difference between selling a few more Harley Davidson’s overseas and a real export-led economic growth for the US economy. The latter would require hundreds, thousands of Harley Davidson enterprises, selling billions worth of goods and services to foreigners. And right now, those enterprises don't exist. And they may never get off the ground if they
can't get financing.
The boomers are saving. They put their money into the safest possible place - US bonds! That is, they lend it to the government. They're the feds' biggest single source of financing - even bigger than the Chinese.
Meanwhile, the feds pump billions into the banking system. They supply the banks with capital for expansion and consumption. But instead of making loans to the private sector, the banks take the feds' money and lend it
right back to them. They can borrow at a negligible rate, and then use the money to buy long-dated T-bonds yielding over 4%. Result: banks make money; the private sector has no money to
create new businesses.
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (19)
at 12:07 on October 31st, 2009
"...and bribes"
Strongly worded, PIM.
"Consumers may have stopped borrowing, but the US government borrows more than ever." Makes you wonder if the federal gummit will ever figure out what us little people have learned.
PIM, any ideas or figures on what American productivity rates have done since the economy went south? Up, down, the same? Any ideas on EU productivity since this all happened?
I was reading the other day that Chinese productivity rates are rising, which will make them even more competitive in the world market - a scary thought.
at 12:44 on October 31st, 2009
Couldn't find much data HA. It doesn't get published and tabulated as fast as the job loss reports. I did find this though:
Bucking the global trend was the United States, where productivity growth increased slightly from 1.5 per cent in 2007 to 1.7 per cent in 2008 as many firms carried out large job cuts in response to the economic downturn. US productivity growth is expected to slow to 0.5 per cent in 2009, but further job cuts through the course of the year should leave most companies leaner and poised for a strong recovery once the economy bounces back in the latter half of 2009 or in 2010. The Conference Board's latest forecasts show the world's biggest economy contracting by 1.7 per cent this year, the worst performance since 1982.
Now there's a resounding vote for consumer confidence! I don't see why the remaining workers would increase productivity, do you? The one's that still have jobs are the one's that employers are willing to pay without actually having much work for them to produce. Who's buying anything anyway? Except the evil gummint?
- Sign In or Join to post comments
Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpokeat 12:17 on October 31st, 2009
thanks for this PIM. Another great post:)
at 12:23 on October 31st, 2009
PIM of Espana -- Your article presents excellent analysis of the situation. I just spent a week attending various government industry days as they are called in the US. One featured the launch of a huge program to develop a new home for the US Department of Homeland Security whereby the entire department is slated to move into a rehabiliated mental hospital. (I didn't make this up.) This is a very large investment in public infrastructure, meaning that it will create work at the expense of public debt with no return as would be the case if the amount were loaned to private enterprise.
The next event that I attended was defense oriented, featuring a theme that innovation comes from small business. Yet, it is the large defense contractors that are behind the scenes promoting wars and very often choaking innovation while they once again rob the public posketbook.
Where will it end? Until a political party emerges that focuses on commercial enterprise, I am afraid we are in for a very long downward spiral.
at 12:31 on October 31st, 2009
While I appreciate your concerns, you've got to be kidding me; right? What do you consider commercial enterprise? Our entire economy is based on commercial enterprise, which has fallen apart, if you haven't noticed. That rehabilitated mental hospital should be used to house some of those bastards from finance and congress that created this mess. Then we might be on the road to "recovery."
at 17:19 on October 31st, 2009
nanute: Ah! We're making progress here! I see that you said " . . .some of those bastards from from finance and congress . . . ." lol!
at 17:15 on October 31st, 2009
YankeeJim: I understand your point and agree with most of it. My only question is how will a large investment in infrastructure (work essentially performed by private contractors and vendors) not have a short term benefit (say a few years) on a local economy and private businesses? Long term economic benefits are another thing entirely and I agree with you there.
at 16:59 on October 31st, 2009
Yes I have been say much the same about manufacturing for a long time now. But in my opinion there are flaws in the way your looking at the total solution.
I am glad to see that your stating such...
Yes the markets are re-balancing on their own they would of done so without any form of stimulant, its as I keep on saying the investors that gain confidence in gambling in market place that make that so.
However I am not saying any more here as it will take some of the oomph out of my own article on the manufacturing problem and solution today.
at 16:59 on October 31st, 2009
More great information.
at 01:15 on November 1st, 2009
The message has been well received and understood I see from above comments. Will try to come back later answering the questions put forward. As BF highlighted the Market has to do most of the work within the set rules of accounting as Roy correctly mentioned.
In deed some of the comments are LOL!:)
And then the Homeland security's new building. I recall that in one of my previous essays I wrote about the Municipality that was ordered by the mayor to build a new Town hall to keep his people working. Indeed once there is no return on investment the whole project is silly as most of the stimuli and bailouts are!
at 12:22 on November 1st, 2009
HA back in Town again I'll answer your question about the real growth rate you put forward above in yr comment. The publishd growth rate 3.5%is a lie, and I'll explain that as follow:
The government released GDP figures showing rosy 3.5% growth in the third quarter. But don’t be fooled: the books were cooked. This time by the cash for clunkers boondoggle, the first time home buyers tax credit, and other forms of worthless stimulus.
According to The Wall Street Journal, “fully 2.2 percentage points of the third quarter's 3.5% growth figure related to vehicle purchases and residential construction, both juiced by government support. Federal spending added 0.6%.”
The Bureau of Economic Analysis says car sales shot up 157.6% quarter on quarter. That means cash for clunkers accounted for 1.66% of total GDP.
So subtract fake demand (1.66%) from the official GDP figure (3.5%), and you’re left with 1.84% GDP growth. Not so great after all…
And if you take away other forms of stimulus, the GDP picture appears even darker. According to Gluskin Sheff’s David Rosenberg, GDP would have been flat or negative sans stimulus.
at 12:33 on November 1st, 2009
So, that means the stimulus is working, short term? You can't have it both ways PIM. Tell the automakers, buyers and all those first time home buyers that the stimulus was worthless. I think you'll get a bit of disagreement.
at 02:48 on November 2nd, 2009
nanute, i took a look at that multimillion dollar "stimulus" job here in town, that you pointed out to me the other day.
Seems there are a dozen or so actively working on the project, but much of the cost was rung up before the stimulus kicked in. The price given included the engineering, design, environmental studies, prep work, etc. that were already complete before the stimulus was awarded - BUT, the stimulus pays for it all.
It was work that simply got moved up a few months because of the money.
Did it save any jobs? NO
But it looks good, and that's what counts.
at 13:09 on November 1st, 2009
Let's put this way: The stimulus result is fake. Because from the car buyers and home buyers more than 50% had bought anyhow. The others who wanted couldn't afford it because they were financially no credit-worth. And from that part that bought on credit and stimulus another 50% will end up in foreclosure within in a year - statistically - that make the end result that each car sold costed 24,000 in stimulus money and the same with the housing and other stimuli. Any subsidy distorts the market equilibrium. In August were cars sold that otherwise next year or thereafter would have been sold. It was stealing from the future again.
at 02:41 on November 2nd, 2009
PIM - agree 110%.
The majority of the Cash for Clunkers were buyers that simply took advantage of the program - much like using a coupon for toilet paper.
Only 20% bought because of the program alone - the rest simply purchased a car sooner than they would have without it. http://my.nowpublic.com/world/24-000-00-clunkers-clunker.
With regards to the home buying incentive, the only 2 couples that i know that are taking advantage of it are very young (early 20's). The ONLY way they qualified for a home was because of the extra $8000.00. Not a good sign regarding their credit worthiness, and as you say, are good candidates for future foreclosures.
at 03:09 on November 2nd, 2009
Only 20% bought because of the program alone-the rest simply purchased a car sooner than they would have without it. You are trying to tell me the 80% that did buy sooner were willing to pay $4,500.00 more but then decided to buy sooner, why?
Maybe, just maybe that $8,000.00 put these new first time home buyers in a financial position that will make their mortgage payment in line with their debt/to income ratio. That can't be possible, can it? The damn gummint is in on it.
at 03:37 on November 2nd, 2009
"....but then decided to buy sooner, why?"
because you would have to be an idiot, not to take advantage of "free money"
as i said......like using a coupon for toilet paper. You are going to buy the TP anyway (hopefully), but if there is a coupon, you take advantage of it...."free money".
With respect to the home buyers, agreed, to a point. If that $8,000.00 gummit gift was the only way to get into that house, what are the chances of them making mortgage payments if one or both lose their job, get hours cut, or any thing else?
One purchased the home, then used credit card cards for part of their furnishings, and then spent $500.00 for a dog the week after they moved in. They are already deep into the "gotta have it" lifestyle at 23 & 22.. Not a good sign.
at 03:49 on November 2nd, 2009
My point exactly. You'd have to be an idiot not to take the free money. The decision was in fact based on the program. Not agreeing with the program is fine. That young couple could be like any other vulnerable homeowner: A paycheck away from default. Remember the "ownership" society initiative?
at 13:45 on November 1st, 2009
So much uncertainty. What's a rational investor supposed to do?