In December 2008, with the economy in freefall and nearly one million workers losing their jobs each month, I asked Is there Hope for an Obama Economic Recovery in 2009?. After noting that " This is an economy in free-fall" and that "a Deflationary Bust -- the first since 1938 -- is in full force, " I wrote that
Left to its own devices, I suspect the economy would succumb to a deflationary spiral. But Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve know this as well: Bernanke is a scholar of Federal Reserve mistakes during the 1929-32 Great Depression. He is resolved not to make the same mistakes that were made then .... He is aiming a veritable monetary firehose at the deflationary vortex, hoping to flood it with money and so overcome the incipient deflation.Because the 2007-2009 economic downturn had much in common with the Great Depression, and because despite that fact, very few statistical series cover that period of time, in January 2009 in a series of 5 posts, I examined "Economic Indicators during the Roaring Twenties and Great Depression" in detail. Noting that the Great Depression as well as the 1938 recession, and other recessions during the 1920s had bottomed when the rate of YoY change in prices bottomed, I concluded:
....
There is at least some hope [that] ....a new Administration in Washington populated by Economic Adults may unfreeze the logjam of money supply sitting in banks and not being lent out. Certainly there is a pressing need for massive infrastructure investments that can lead to renewed bank lending and economic expansion on Main Street.
Yes there is Hope for an Obama Economic Recovery in 2009.
the indicators we have studied from the earlier Deflationary period suggest that the recession might bottom out in about Q3By April, it was reasonably clear that a wage deflationary spiral was not going to happen, and that gave me confidence enough to write:
For purposes of this discussion, I am going to assume that the optimistic scenario turns out to be the correct one: viz., that the YoY inflation rate will bottom in about July 2009 and that will mark the end of the recession and the beginning point of any recovery.By early May 2009 we had had both a bottom in retail sales, stabilization in the housing market, and the signs of significant decline in both initial jobless claims and monthly payroll losses. On May 07, I wrote:
This week's decline increases the likelihood that the recession is very close to bottoming to more than 50%.Four days later, referring primarily to the Leading Economic Indicators, which were almost all showing signs of turning upward, Bonddad and I jointly wrote
The continuing weekly decline in weekly jobless claims is not the only indication that the recession may be close to bottoming out.... Last Friday the ISM Manufacturing Index for April was released. It was all but ignored in the economic blogosphere.... In summary, the NAPM Manufacturing index's reading for April is consistent with the recession bottoming out, and a recovery beginning almost immediately.....
.... the NBER may ultimately date the end of this recession from June or July of this year.
there are plenty of reasons, those listed above not being in any way exhaustive, that people like us are saying that the economic situation looks like it is getting ready to improve.By the end of August we were both confident, and correct, enough to write bluntly that This Recession is Over.
While we were writing the above, we came under criticism from Doomers who claimed, in July 2009 that it was The End of the End of the Recession touting that
If you're like the rest of us, and you can handle the truth about our economy, here's a quick summary:while another in the same month of July derisively claimed that Green Shoots are turning into Brown Weeds:
....-"...the economy is leaps and bounds away from anything remotely resembling a recovery."
"Some Green Shoots supporters have declared that the bottom is in. They point towards various short-term trends, and if you don't look too close, it appears to support their cause.... If you look hard enough you can find Green Shoots, but do they actually exist in the real world? Sadly, no..As late as this July, latching onto a column written by Calculated Risk about the NBER's recession dating (which I also criticized, also correctly as it turned out), one of them claimed:
if another recession starts this year, it will almost certainly be dated as a continuation of the "great recession" that started in 2007. If so, I'll need more blue ink to shade all my graphs ...Yesterday the NBER settled that debate. They confirmed that the Pied Pipers of Doom were wrong. At the very time they were writing the above bombasts, the economy had begun to recover.
IMHO, more likely than not, these are the realities of our economy heading into the last four months of the 2010 election cycle.
In short, there can't be a double-dip recession if the Great Recession never ended, in the first place.
More importantly, Bonddad and I were right in calling the bottom of the Great Recession -- not just contemporaneously, but months in advance.


9 comments:
And that's why I keep coming back day after day ;) Mish is fun to read but he was flat out wrong on this call. Let's hope he didn't lose his clients too much money.
Congrats on patting yourself on the back. Now if only all the unemployed would go away then your "accomplishment" would be justified. I get that you are analyzing data, but gloating about a jobless recovery is quite off putting.
What you, the pundits and economists alike don't get is that the Great Recession affected peoples lives. People now without home, health care, jobs and any sort of recovery. So clap all you want, but some of us "doomers" understand what you do not. Things aren't better right now for a whole lotta folks.
I will continue to visit this blog and appreciate your expertise. I don't appreciate your naivety about what this is truly about, not numbers, but people. So in fact you are wrong. Now I will go down the street with pipe in hand...
I interpret the current times a little bit differently. I've been saying for months -- almost as long ago as your correct call -- that the economy had plateaued, and that the first and second derivatives of global economic activity had both been wiggling around zero. That is, until about two months ago when I called the eruption of that Island volcano as the start of a downward move of the second derivative, with the first being on high alert for a move downward as well. The jury awaits the data, but meanwhile, I think the general psychology continues downward, and thus, my gloom continues.
AAP:
First of all, I know you have linked to and appreciated Bonddad in the past, including the recent past, so if you are going to hold this post against anyone, hold it against me, not bonddad.
Secondly, as much as you get upset by this, there are other people who say they can't know who to trust until they see their record. And in this case, I think my record is pretty good.
I agree with you about the suffering many average people are going through. I don't see that as inconsistent at all. I do regret that I may have given you reason to dislike me. But enjoy your pipe as you walk down the street.
AAP, what do you want from these guys? They analyze and predict. Policy's done by the suits over in D.C. Bonddad's gang can't save the economy any more than a weatherman can protect against rain.
NDD,
I do not hold anything against you nor bonddad. I understand that your post was meant to reassert your correct assessment, I get that. I did, however find it in bad taste considering what many families across our country currently face. Their realities don't include recovery whatsoever. Perhaps I was too harsh in my initial comment as I was attempting to deflate what I felt was a rather "bragadocious" post. Apologies if I offended, as I will continue to link to and visit the site frequently, but still will pipe :)
@dragonchild
I have come to expect a certain level of professional and understanding of the crisis at hand from both NDD and bonddad. This site has recently received a much deserved honor to post at the NY Times. I would like to believe that they are not merely posting, but now have an ability to influence or educate on policy. Considering the audience I felt the tone of the post was a bit of unnecessary egoism. To your last sentiment, can't a weatherman at least tell you when to bring an umbrella in case of rain?
The index of leading indicators became positive because of massive manipulation of many of the leading indicators by the federal reserve. This is why most pundits didn't give the leading indicators much credibility at the time. To make a recovery call based on heavily manipulated indicators isn't very impressive, especially considering that Bonddad and New Deal Democrat didn't and still don't seem to acknowledge that these indicators are highly manipulated. It's also interesting that Bonddad and New Deal Democrat haven't given those same leading indicators much credibily now when they've signaled renewed recession for several months now, despite still being manipulated by the Fed.
Everyone has known that the statistical recovery began in June or July 2009. But most folks know that the supposed recovery was based simply on the federal govt issuing huge amounts of additional securities, the federal reserve printing new money to directly or indirectly buy those securities, and the federal govt using the proceeds of the bond sales to the fed to spend directly or simply hand out to people.
Anon --
No, there was no "massive manipulation" by the Federal Reserve. 32% of the LEIs is M2. That means that 68% are outside the Fed's influence.
As for the Fed borrowing huge amounts of money, you are wrong. Yes, the Fed has purchased Treasuries, which has increased the reserves at banks. but banks aren't making loans, meaning there is no increase in money supply. in fact, if you look at MZM it is decreasing and its velocity is decreasing as well.
Actually, NDD and I cover the LEIs every month -- an no, they are not signaling a recession.
Here is what the conference board said in their latest release:
'“The indicators point to a slow expansion through the end of the year,” says Ken Goldstein, economist at The Conference Board. “With inventory rebuilding moderating, the industrial core of the economy has moved to a slower pace. There appears to be no change in the pace of the service sector. Combined, the result is a weak economy with little forward momentum. However, the good news is that the data do not point to a recession.”
Says Ataman Ozyildirim, economist at The Conference Board: “The economy should continue expanding, albeit slowly. The LEI is growing at its slowest pace since mid-2009 and it has been essentially flat since March. However, the index is still well above pre-recession levels and the CEI remains on a rising trend that began in late 2009. All four coincident indicators have risen over the last six months, with July’s gain in industrial production offsetting the recent weakness in employment.”"
From the dkos crosspost:
heya bonddad... (0+ / 0-)
glad to see you again.
I think I'll have to disagree on the prospects of another wage deflationary spiral, though, not based on data, but on history and my own knowledge of business dynamics. We've already seen posted here at least three examples of current "negotiations" in which unions who have already agreed to some concessions (I really hate those two words in the same sentence, btw) still being threatened with facilities departing to greener fields. I've mentioned here of similar processes going on currently both in Bangladesh and in Malaysia.
The spread of this kind of behavior on the part of management can take everyone by surprise and its onset can be quite sudden, as other companies decide that competitiveness demands it. We saw this in the period from 1978 to 1982 (in which we may insert the recession in 1981 very snugly) take hold very quickly as the UAW came under attack from the big three automakers as well as International Harvester. The UAW gave ground in every instance.
Does it mean that it will happen? Yes and no. No, because there will be a heavy political price to pay right now if management undertakes moves like these, though there are signs they may be getting ready to, even so. Yes, because the downward pressure on wages will continue in the long term because it's the only way management knows to boost productivity, profits and shareholder earnings.
I feel the pressure on wages is very, very real.
* * *
As for income growth on the whole, the data I've seen does absolutely nothing to differentiate between the sources of that income growth. There are (laggard) indicators that any growth is almost entirely due to portfolio appreciation at the top, rather than from stable or rising wages, which would go a long way to explaining the disparity between this growth (which I think of as phantom growth) and spending described in this article.
What do you think?
Post a Comment