This is an interesting question, and it cuts basically to the heart of the current issue. People generally believe that we are in a better place today than we were a couple of quarters ago. That much is understood. What isn't understood, and what is frequently asked, is whether or not this is sustainable. Have we been doing a lot of things that aren't repeatable in the coming quarters, or are we truly just getting warmed up? In the past, the consumer has made up about 70 percent of the overall economy, if we define "past" as the past 25 years of economic expansion. How has this occurred?
Note the following:
-Rising Asset Prices (house, stock market, etc)
-Low cost of borrowing and easy access to credit
-Decreased financial regulations that, in some ways, made access to money even easier than it otherwise would have been
These three main ideas, along with others, combined to make people very willing and very able to do one thing: SPEND MONEY. The key question to ask is, is what's going on today going to inspire people to spend money more freely? The government spending and Fed policy can help, but there is no economic force powerful enough to completely replace and regenerate the effect of the general population spending money. Note the following points relating to today:
-People are still WAY down in their investments relative to 2007 peak prices
-Home prices (depending on area) are depressed or still deteriorating
-Unemployment and under-employment are still on the rise
-Increases in regulations will tighten access to credit
-Securitizations are way down relative to recent past
-Bank Lending continues to be tight
-Savings rates have increased and are projected to increase further as consumers de-leverage their balance sheets
Maybe something will happen to turn things around, but these general facts, and probably some others, make a case that it is very tough to expect consumers to just jump right back in and start spending just as much as they were. Therefore, it makes sense to consider other ways in which the overall economy can grow. Consumer-led growth is a Keynesian principal, meaning, economic growth is catalyzed by the money consumers are spending. There is another view, the classical view, founded upon the idea of economic growth being centered around business invested and technological innovation. Ultimately, this innovation improves society and standards of living, and, while early in the cycle it does not lead to very much consumer spending, as the picture changes going forward, sparks ignite in a few distinct corners of the economy that lead to an overall larger and more sustainable recovery. A way to think of it is as though we had a pie, and the filling of this pie was depending upon factors that made people spend lots and lots of money. If people were spending, we had a nice, filling, tasty dessert. When they stopped, we were left with an empty crust.
-Low cost of borrowing and easy access to credit
-Decreased financial regulations that, in some ways, made access to money even easier than it otherwise would have been
These three main ideas, along with others, combined to make people very willing and very able to do one thing: SPEND MONEY. The key question to ask is, is what's going on today going to inspire people to spend money more freely? The government spending and Fed policy can help, but there is no economic force powerful enough to completely replace and regenerate the effect of the general population spending money. Note the following points relating to today:
-People are still WAY down in their investments relative to 2007 peak prices
-Home prices (depending on area) are depressed or still deteriorating
-Unemployment and under-employment are still on the rise
-Increases in regulations will tighten access to credit
-Securitizations are way down relative to recent past
-Bank Lending continues to be tight
-Savings rates have increased and are projected to increase further as consumers de-leverage their balance sheets
Maybe something will happen to turn things around, but these general facts, and probably some others, make a case that it is very tough to expect consumers to just jump right back in and start spending just as much as they were. Therefore, it makes sense to consider other ways in which the overall economy can grow. Consumer-led growth is a Keynesian principal, meaning, economic growth is catalyzed by the money consumers are spending. There is another view, the classical view, founded upon the idea of economic growth being centered around business invested and technological innovation. Ultimately, this innovation improves society and standards of living, and, while early in the cycle it does not lead to very much consumer spending, as the picture changes going forward, sparks ignite in a few distinct corners of the economy that lead to an overall larger and more sustainable recovery. A way to think of it is as though we had a pie, and the filling of this pie was depending upon factors that made people spend lots and lots of money. If people were spending, we had a nice, filling, tasty dessert. When they stopped, we were left with an empty crust.
When faced with an empty crust, there are two options:
1. Go back to doing the same things and trying to find the same sources of filling.
2. Create an entirely new dessert: Creating something new is definitely tougher to conceptualize, but that doesn't mean that it isn't possible.
Consider the following: Corporate balance sheets (ex autos and financials) are in fantastic shape. Companies are cutting costs and have more cash than during any prior economic down turns. The table is set for investment, especially with recent increases productivity and efficiency. As long as government policy is not too stifling, there is a significant chance of economic expansion, just not in the ways that it has been driven in the past 25 years.
This view was inspired from one of John Maudlin's pieces, Thoughts From the Frontline. What really grabbed me was that, instead of simply re-hashing all of the ways in which growth as occured in the recent past and trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, it takes what is currently going on and finds a theoretical framework that fits better than anything currently being proposed. There is no way to pull out a crystal ball and truly know. I just think it's nice to think that the recovery can come from sources and be driven by factors that no one truly knows at this time. If we can be so surprised by the crisis itself, who's to say we can't be equally, if not more surprised by the recovery?
Consider the following: Corporate balance sheets (ex autos and financials) are in fantastic shape. Companies are cutting costs and have more cash than during any prior economic down turns. The table is set for investment, especially with recent increases productivity and efficiency. As long as government policy is not too stifling, there is a significant chance of economic expansion, just not in the ways that it has been driven in the past 25 years.
This view was inspired from one of John Maudlin's pieces, Thoughts From the Frontline. What really grabbed me was that, instead of simply re-hashing all of the ways in which growth as occured in the recent past and trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, it takes what is currently going on and finds a theoretical framework that fits better than anything currently being proposed. There is no way to pull out a crystal ball and truly know. I just think it's nice to think that the recovery can come from sources and be driven by factors that no one truly knows at this time. If we can be so surprised by the crisis itself, who's to say we can't be equally, if not more surprised by the recovery?
Posts
