State For Me The Case That We're Economically Nowhere Near Out Of The Woods

The last few weeks a number of people have told me that “things look like they are beginning to pick up.”

I’m familiar with the scraplets of data on which these assurances are based (some good, or at least less-bad-than-expected, numbers on housing starts and/or new jobless claims). Then there are anecdotes about companies that haven’t hired in six months now soliciting resumes.

I am not sure I buy it. Business is relatively dead where I work. I am not sure the residential real estate massacre is fully played out. I am pretty sure the commercial real estate situation has a ways to unwind. Throw in consumer credit delinquencies.

So: several people have painted for me a scenario in which, with the stock market now at its high point for the year, things gradually pick up such that we’re out of recession by no later than the end of the year.

I remember several economists I talked to a few months ago saying this downturn won’t end before 2011. But that was anecdotal, over drinks. My request: submit to me the best arguments/evidence for the more pessimistic, we’ve still got a long way to go, view of the global and/or Western economic debacle.

I’m an optimist, and think we’ve turned the corner, but there is still a long way to go.

  • Reducing the number of new unemployment claims is a far cry from actually increasing the number of people employed.

  • Housing has picked up, but the recent mortgage interest rate increases may kill this recovery.

  • Consumer spending was up last month, but it is far from a trend.

  • Credit card loan defaults haven’t hit in big numbers yet - but may as those unemployed run out of options.

The worst thing we can do is declare the recession’s over, so we can stop the stimulus package.

The best thing you could do is stop the stimulus package. In my opinion, it’s doing more harm than good. The G8 is re-evaluating its stimulus packages as we speak, for fear that the negative consequences of the borrowing have now outstripped the positive benefits of a stimulus.

The economy may in fact be turning around. If that’s the case, then the stimulus isn’t needed, since it had nothing to do with the turnaround. In fact, its effects have probably been negative so far - pushing up interest rates, mostly.

On the other hand, this could be a ‘dead cat bounce’. The main thing the government has done so far that has actually improved the economy is to increase liquidity and make it possible for businesses to borrow. This was not part of the stimulus, but actually part of monetary policy - ‘quantitative easing’, it’s called. The Fed pumped a whole lot of money into the financial system to offset the drop in velocity of money.

The problem is that once the recovery starts in earnest, and velocity picks up, the stage is set for inflation. The only way out of that is to somehow pull back all the money that the fed has pumped into the system. The typical way this is done is with interest rate hikes, and those are anti-growth. So, the biggest risk to the recovery is the return of 70’s style stagflation. That could lead to years of low growth and high interest rates, or normal growth and high inflation, followed by another crash.

The other major risk to the economy is the fact that the government has to raise another trillion dollars in the bond markets in the next six months, and those markets are already beginning to look strained. Britain has had a bond default already. The last treasury auction saw interest rates spike upwards before the government could clear the market. If the U.S. can’t find buyers for its debt, it will have to offer even higher interest rates, or buy the debt through the treasury, monetizing it and further exacerbating inflationary pressures.

There’s a a vicious interaction possible here. Inflation means a devalued dollar, and it also makes it harder to get people to hold debt in a declining dollar. That means higher interest rates. Higher interest rates create higher debt servicing costs, which eat into the budget, which creates a bigger deficit.

The U.S. is in unknown territory here. The last time the debt was this high as a percentage of GDP was at the end of WWII, but that was a temporary debt, and the U.S. structural deficit was nil and the huge safety net that consumes so much of today’s budgets did not yet exist. In addition, the U.S. came out of WWII as the industrial factory for the world, and enjoyed an explosion of trade and exports. Also, the U.S. could raise taxes and get away with it, because it had little competition in the world.

Today, the U.S. is tightly constrained. Raise taxes on the rich too much, and watch capital fly out of the country. Raise business taxes, and watch as foreign competitors eat America’s lunch. And yet, the current deficit is so huge that no one really knows how to pay it down without massive tax increases. In the meantime, the U.S. is becoming hostage to an increasingly hostile and competitive world because it needs to keep selling its debt abroad.

George Bush’s fiscal policy was grossly irresponsible. Obama’s taken Bush’s irresponsibility and magnified it. No good can come of this.

Easy. No matter what the Admin does, we’ve still got the ineluctable physical limitations of peak oil to deal with. There’s no political solution to that. It’s going to change everything, forever, and not for the better. No conceivable alternative technology can be implemented fast enough to save the easy-motoring system on which Western and particularly American civilization has been based and built since WWII. And – as in the 1970s – no public policy WRT taxes, the money supply, the prime rate or the federal budget deficit can stave off inflation caused by a real external cost to the American economy. Only it’s worse now, because the 1970s oil shocks were rooted in cartelization and ephemeral geopolitical conditions. Those that are coming will be rooted in the real all-time physical limits of the global oil supply, which can’t be negotiated away.

Check out World Made by Hand, by James Howard Kunstler.

Oh, I forgot the other major risk to the economy - protectionism. As the government injects itself more and more into the business world, it comes under increasing pressure to use its power to protect itself from competition. In addition, if other countries see U.S. governmental involvement as being an illegal subsidy, they may decide to retaliate.

A negative effect of the stimulus that is already being felt is the ‘buy American’ clause. While watered down from its original form, it is already raising anxieties with trading partners. Some municipalities in Canada are already threatening retaliation. Other countries could follow suit. If GM vehicles receive direct government subsidies on an ongoing basis, you can bet that that will also trigger threats of retaliation. A trade war and a return to protectionism would be the surest way of turning a deep recession into a worldwide depression.

If demand goes up ,people will be hired back. of course they will be in China and make 80 cents an hour. The jobs are gone. The reason China had to help us was because we had the demand to keep their factories humming. If we don’t have the demand ,we will not have the power. Most of America is on a tobaggon run to the bottom. the people on top will clean up while it happens.
Foreclosures , unemployment , business closures and personal bankruptcies are climbing. Unemployment is climbing. Wheres the bottom?

Things are not getting as bad as fast as before. That’s a far cry from a bottom and a hugely far cry from a recovery. We have:

-The change in FASB is allowing the banks to warehouse their radio active bad debt and claim “profitability”
-continued lay offs (and people unemployed for longer)
person credit card debt has not wound through the system
-Alt-A debt has not been written off
-Commercial property is still largely in denial and not anywhere close to clearing levels
-residential foreclosures likely to rise

Sam - the dead cat bounce is the current bear rally in the stock markets. The really good thing about it is that the banks have taken the opportunity to raise over $100 billion in new capital.

The greatest ponzi scheme in the history of mankind is going to take more than a year to clear the system. We’ll be lucky if we’re out of this in 5 years.

Look to Japan bubble years as a lesson. Japan is coming up on nearly 2 decades of dealing with their bubble. The US is making some of the same mistakes by allowing the warehousing of bad debt in the hopes that it will mature at par sometime in the future when it is somone elses problem.

Sam Stone consults his 1930s Republican handbook to spout counterproductive nonsense.

On the other hand your post was most productive. Thank you. Unfortunately Obama didn’t deliver the change he promised. Instead he pushed the pedal even harder. Faster into debt. Inflation.

Well, except for the use of existing, proven technology to replace oil with electric vehicles powered by coal. We can implement that pretty much over night.

We’ve been hearing this Chicken Little “the oil is ending” cry for almost 100 years. It’s always going to run short within 10 years and then oil prices will increase out of site. And for the last 100 years oil reserves have continued to increase, oil has become more abundant and as a result oil prices have continued to fall.

But keep saying it, and one day you must be right. As you note, there is a finite amount of oil on the planet. However given that in 100 years we haven’t even extracted half the available oil I don’t think this is going to prevent recovery form the current recession.

It’s all just Chicken Little alarmism.

Electric vehicles powered by coal?! :confused:

Do you mean, vehicles with on-board coal supplies, or electric vehicles with their batteries charged from grid electricity generated by coal-fired power plants? I don’t think either can provide anything like the energy petroleum-fueled vehicles daily consume on the roads in America.

The “peak oil” problem is not that we’re going to run out of oil. It is that after the all-time production peak is passed – which it did in the U.S. in the early 1970s, and might have done globally in the last year or two – every year it costs a little more to get every barrel out of the ground.

Inflation isn’t even close to being a problem at this point. Deflation is the problem.

To say, 4 months into the stimulus, that it was a failure and is doing more harm than good shows a lack of long term understanding.

When you were a kid, did you yell “Daddy, are we there yet?” a block from home? Because that’s what this post sounds like.
Bush took eight years to ruin the country. Give Obama a little bit of time to fix it.

Not at all. Obama regrets spending the money to stabilize the banks. He seems to feel it is wrong to give tax money to the thieves that destroyed the economy. He was convinced the banking system was on the brink of failure and had to be saved,.He was reluctant to do it. I would have favored nationalizing a few of them and getting more bang for the buck. But the repubs and magnates still have a lot of power.

I missed this. Britain (as in the government) missed a coupon payment? Are you sure, Sam?

Or was an offering undersubscribed?

I knew the latter had happened, but not the former.

What do you think electric vehicles today are powered by? In the US IIRC >75% of electric cars are powered by coal.

Why not? There is between 500 and 10, 000 times more energy stored within coal and unconventional oil sources within North America alone than in all the oil that ever existed on the whole planet. So even assuming that our electric cars are only 20% efficient we could happily run them for the next hundred years. And that’s not even taking into consideration other proven technologies such as wind or nuclear that are effectively limitless.

I’m well aware of that. And I am well aware that people have been saying exactly what you just said for the past 100 years. Oil is always going to peak within the next 10 years. Or if prices are high, it has already peaked; that cry was popular in the 70s. Why should I believe this Chicken Little cry this time around when it has been wrong the other 10 times?

The fact is that we have not yet extracted even half the conventional oil from the ground. And there are orders of magnitude more oil in the form of shales, tars, bitumens and so forth that can be extracted at an energetic profit using current technology. All we need to start extracting that oil economically is a sustained oil price of >30/barrel.

So provided that your definition of “cheap oil” is <30/bl then peak oil will be the end of cheap oil. But since we’ve just come out of 5+ years of oil selling for <30/bl and the economy w s going gangbusters I think that we can safely forget the nonsense that the end of cheap oil will result in an economic downturn and global famine.

Blake, you’re ignoring rate of extraction. While Alberta oilsands crude is profitable at $30-60/bbl (varies from site to site), the rate of extraction is very low compared to conventional fields. It’s also extremely capital-intensive and cannot be scaled up quickly. They’re currently around 1.3M bbl/day with the prospects of getting to 3M bbl/day by the end of the decade after spending hundreds of billions of dollars on infrastructure. Shales would be noticeably worse in these regards, as is evidenced by the total lack of commercial development of those deposits.

If conventional oil production were to drop off by say 10 million bbl/day next week (equivalent to the Saudis or Russians completely stopping production) we’d have a price spike that would dwarf all previous oil price spikes and no prospect of bridging the gap with oil sands or shales for decades. Unless you can figure out a way to build a couple or ten trillion dollars worth of infrastructure overnight. Good luck with that.

Fortunately for all our sakes the process won’t be that abrupt, but you’re fooling yourself if you think a massive shift in oil production from conventional to unconventional won’t place tremendous strain on the global economy in a fashion that could easily cause or prolong a global recession/depression. End of civilization scenarios are just silly, I’d agree, but the OP is only asking about not being economically out of the woods. Even a return to $150/bbl would put significant brakes on economic recovery.

Back to the OP. The problem as I see it is that trillions of dollars of wealth has disappeared from the economy as the result of plummeting stock, bond, and real-estate values. Add to that the fact that American consumers were creating demand by going in to debt. With credit rules tightening, the inability to borrow against home equity, and people just wisening up, there will be less demand than before. It’s like the US ran off a cliff several years ago and just now looked down. I just don’t see how things will get better soon.

The best idea I herad of lately was raising the minimum wage to put more money in the hands of people most apt to spend it.

No, I’m not. I’m not referring to it because it is completely irrelevant.

You’ve appear to have just demolished your own argument in one parahrpah
The rate of extraction is lower because, as you note, it is more expensive to extract, and so less money has been spent to build sand extractors than to build refineries. There is no physical limit to the rate of extraction. It’s purely economic and therefore totally irrelevant.

  1. There has not been a “total lack of commercial development”.
    Currently Estonia has three retorts producing shale oil, and the output of Eesti Energia’s two plants is about 2,500 b/d of shale oil…China has several active oil shale projects. In 2007, Fushun Mining Group Co. in Liaoning province produced 300,000 tpy of shale oil with 180 Fushun-type retorts each processing 100 tonnes/day of oil shale. The oil shale is a by-product of coal mining. …Petroleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras) has produced about 20 million bbl of shale oil from its commercial-sized Petrosix vertical shaft gas combustion retort in Brazil.

  2. No, they wouldn’t be worse. Shales can be faster to extract than liquid crude, but they are much more energy intensive and hence release more CO2. There are also other potential pollution problems.

  3. The slow rate of commercial development has been entirely attributable to protests by environmentalists. It has nothing to do with any physical, technological or economic limitations. The industry is begging governments worldwide to allow them to invest in commercial oil shale plant and governments are stopping them because of environmentalist protests.Whether these concerns are valid or not you can not use them as evidence of some physical or economic limitation to the use of oil shales. If we need oil shales to keep the economy floating the option exists using current technology and has more potential investors than oppotunities for investment

And if I grew wheels next week I’d be a shopping cart. But we know that isn’t ogng to happen.

Has anyone living outside a mental hospital ever proposed that oil production could decline by say 10 million bbl/day in a week or even in week or even in a decade?

If not then what the hell is the relevance of discussing this? Peak oil will mean at worst a slow, steady decline in the production of liquid crude. Discussing catastrophic events is silly because the just won’t happen?

WTF? How could “a couple or ten trillion dollars worth of infrastructure” development possible prolong a recession? What school of economics teaches that massive infrastructure development projects prolongs recession rather than shortening them?

Firstly that’s debatable at best. The economy continued to boom when oil was $150/bbl and was only slowed because of credit stagnation. So it appears that high oil prices don’t necessarily put the brakes on economic growth provided there in infractruture growth to support it. And you’ve already told us that we’d have “a couple or ten trillion dollars worth of infrastructure” development.

Secondly, with several hundred or thousand years of oil extractable at $30 or even 60/bl why would we ever return to $150/bbl unless the economy was booming. You are saying that with oil selling at $150/bbl even under conditions of low demand nobody is going to start investing in schemes that can produce it for $30. IOW nobody is going to back a scheme that will return 500% profit over 10 years? That seems implausible.

Nobel Prize Winning Economist Paul Krugman has a pretty good summation in his regular NY Times column. Main point being that we are in a liquidity trap. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/opinion/15krugman.html?hpw