The decidedly plaintive note that our financial journalists have been sounding – that consumer confidence will return and the economy will rebound – is dishonest to the core. Lack of jobs and decent wages keeps erstwhile consumers from buying despite all the fictitious analysis the business press keeps manufacturing.
There is a lack of confidence that does indeed keep our economy from rebounding, and that’s the lack of lender confidence. Waiting for higher returns, the loan-making community is showing its usual short-sided behavior. By holding onto its funds, the financial sphere commits suicide, bolstered by adherents who only think about the bottom line.
Without new loans, the economic activity our economy is based on is not getting turned around. However, major lenders are refinancing the old, bad loans for higher returns. Taking the 2008 stimulus funds that the government used to ‘bail them out’ under the Bush administration, the lending institutions are reaching for another disaster.
Federal Reserve data show the 18 primary dealers required to bid at Treasury auctions held $27.6 billion of securities as collateral for financings lasting more than one day as of Aug. 12, up 75 percent from May 6.
The increase suggests money is being used for riskier home- loan, corporate and asset-backed securities because it excludes Treasuries, agency debt and mortgage bonds guaranteed by Washington-based Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of McLean, Virginia or Ginnie Mae in Washington…
Lending to purchase loans rated below investment grade and mortgage bonds is part of this year’s recovery in credit markets.(snip)
“If you lever up an asset at these already elevated prices, and the underlying fundamentals, like termites, start to chew through the performance of the security, at some point it becomes unsustainable,” said Julian Mann, who helps oversee $5 billion in bonds as a vice president at First Pacific Advisors LLC in Los Angeles.
There is an increasing need for regulation of the financial institutions that make these ever-growing errors in judgment. While maximization of profits is the ultimate goal, the failure to build up assets and real worth is defeating that end. The real economy is the one that financial speculators milked dry. The moneylenders are incapable of rebuilding a healthy production sector, a basic function they do not have a real comprehension for. The real economy is the one that produces this country’s worth and pays real wages that are sunk back into the national wealth.
While the nation struggles through the throes of recession/depression, the marketeers are investing in its offal. The financial community is returning to toxic loans that they originated and cannot see are a fiction. Relying on that segment of the economy for our turnaround is an exercise in ignorance. As Dr. Krugman has insisted, the government needs to step in to avoid continuing economic disaster.
The official White House forecast shows a nation stuck in purgatory for a prolonged period, with high unemployment persisting for years. If that’s at all correct — and I fear that it will be — we should be doing more, not less, to support the economy.
The shoe that has not dropped yet is the re-valuation of toxic assets on these lenders’ books. While the banks have been propped up, their books are still being written in disappearing ink.
A bold hand is needed to take hold of the financial industry and pare it back to operative, functioning reality. That bold hand should start with increasing investment in infrastructure and innovation in industry, through government supports that will pay off in jobs, wages, and growth.



56 Comments







We should probably go back to making real things here again, instead of just playing with money.
It’s that playing that has led to this fact, but it’s not real money. It doesn’t equate to actual value.
it’s Monopoly money; we just pretend it has real value.
It’s not real money because the financial geniuses can create the obligations at will and there’s no underlying, er, investment. No capital in the sense of goods the enable the making of other goods.
And as a hedge against risk, those vehicles are clearly fraud.
Sensible reality-based and not as profitable as risking it all on one spin of the roulette wheel. Bankers need to take that 12-step program to break their addiction to gambling.
Yet, where are the risk-takers when it comes to investing in America’s real productive business?
Another excellent article! I have to agree that this shell game is going to cause the nut to disolve. The imaginary props the Fed has been using for the past 8 years will be impossible to remove unless this country produces. We can’t be that great global trading partner the past administrations wished for without products.
Who is buying what we make? What are we making?
The latest shipping rosters I have seen were manifested to export scrap metal and fan parts. This republican “Service Industry Economy” is nothing but a cover to a meltdown. I knew that the minute they decided that fast food joints could now be considered burger manufacturers.
Whenever I see articles about the great treasury heist, I have to agree. As a country we must demand that our resources and treasury be audited. An inventory is needed to know where the next steps should lead.
Thanks, and we are making …it easy for the public to be robbed. It’s not surprising Roubini is predicting another dip when everything still limping along nosedives because there are no consumers for this consumer economy’s sustenance.
Not only Roubini. I think that Taleb, Soros, Krugman, Stieglitz, Jamie Galbraith, and Dean Baker all think that a double-dip is quite likely since the initial stimulus package was far too small. It would be very surprising if there is no double-dip.
Yes, burger manufacturing, and financial instruments are referred to as “products”, with all the marketing support we used to give to fine cereal and soap products.
I don’t understand how this “bold hand” would function. Consumers and businesses are not going to invest in infrastructure; the government tends to do that, and for now that requires more deficit spending, even though the Republicans and far too many Democrats would oppose another stimulus, not to mention the Washington Post and most of the media pundits.
Industry have little incentive to invest until after consumer demand picks up, which is not likely to happen as long as unemployment is approaching 10 percent and people are still trying to recover from losing $12 trillion in wealth. The banks have no one to lend to, because no one thinks it makes sense to be borrowing when they’re trying to rebuild their savings and/or balance sheets. So how does this happen, except by direct federal stimulus in the face of massive political opposition?
That bold hand will be regulation, which is necessary in industries run by CEOs getting obscene salaries, with Boards of Directors that are appointed by the CEOs. In the real economy, this also applies, as the executives generally take over a viable business, then milk the industries they are supposed to develop into good investments, ruining investments because they give figures that show development plans that are aimed at growing the business as previously, rather than the actual operating schema. Yes the stimulus needs to be grown, repeated, so that the monies are going to those that spend them in this economy rather than invest them in high-risk, high-yield derivatives.
It will be opposed by those still following the ideology that got us here, who still can’t face that it is wrong; lowering taxes and encouraging offshore investment will not make this economy prosper.
For it to happen, there probably has to be yet another dip in the economy, and perhaps a rise to 15% unemployment, so that people have nowhere else to turn except for the Government. Obama made a grievous error in not taking the banks into receivership and forcing them to lend to businesses. That would have produced jobs and more consumption power.
The spectacle of banks going under would dry up foreign investment, tho. We are very dependent on that investment now.
Unlike our economy, most foreign investors have savings instead of debts. (Their gov’ts didn’t tell them to go out and buy stuff.)
The Government could spin the banks off in six months once they de-toxify their balance sheets and start loan activity up again. The slack from declining foreign investment can be taken up by Government investment programs and by prohibiting US investors from investing anywhere but here. More generally, I think if we want to get out of this we have to go really New Deal on the whole thing with the Government taking the lead and regulating any large-scale economic activities that are having a negative impact on recovery here. I also think that is likely to require a major retreat from economic globalization on our part.
Sound ideas, but remember, business was nationalized because of the war effort. Making its war effort devoid of sacrifice by anyone but ‘the troops’ and eventually taxpayers for the debt to China, etc., avoided this means of avoiding bankrupting the country by the worst admin. ever.
Sorry, Ruth. I don’t think the country is bankrupt at all. We’re not near in the shape we were in coming out of WWII.
If the administration can continue to get the stimulus of jobs coming, and keep the financial industry from collapse, it may be that bankruptcy can be avoided. But the wingnuts are fighting with all they’ve got to keep that from happening.
Again if you want to restart economic activity via the consumer, a lot of the current debt that consumers are holding needs to be wiped out, mortgages have to be crammed down and reset. Then you can restart lending in a more modest way. But the government is the only one at the moment that has money so we will need considerable stimulus from it to get the economy moving again. I think the likelihood of this is low. The overall quality of our political leadership Democratic and Republican is simply not up to any of this.
I agree. It is a race between the effect of this years mortgage resets and recasts, and the effects of long term unemployment, on the ability of consumers to spend. I think the mealy mouthedness of people like Roubini is that it is difficult to say which will win out. I think it will be a very tight race.
For people who are underwater and whose income/savings have been reduced and depleted their only way out is a short sale. The lender is willing to take a hit of anywhere from $25,000 to $50,000 and sometimes more, provided a new buyer enters the picture. But you can’t get the lender to modify the existing mortgage indebtedness for the current owners even when a $25,000 – $50,000 whack in principal and an interest rate reduction would enable many to stay in their homes with the promise of re-building their equity over time.
There are not enough buyers, first time or otherwise, to solve the excess inventory and foreclosure problem. The rate of existing mortgage modifications is too low and modifications don’t even begin to get discussed until a homeowner is in such peril of default that it probably makes no financial sense to undertake a modification.
I don’t see a consumer led economic recovery absent a huge lift from the current or subsequent economic stimulus legislation.
You and I agree on what needs to be done and also on the likely inability of our political leadership to do it.
We get almost everything from other countries. We have to. They make better cars. They make cameras, we don’t. We burned all our oil. Only problem is, until we have something to offer other than our military, we will continue to attempt to steal it. I wonder why no one is addressing the use of the oil that is running out? That’s the money. It makes the cars go and trucks roll and since it is going to be gone, and there is no way to get things right before then, you understand our government’s view on the economy. “Screw it” Why bother? It is looking like the payoffs have been for no reason except to donate campaign contributions back so they can have a great time until the collapse.
Why are so many ignoring it? Pain? Hope, faith?
I wonder what average percentage of a populace die when a falling empire hits bottom? What are the odds of civil or foreign war at such a point in time?
Fortunately we produce a lot of food, but the way health care is going… I suspect millions of Americans would rather watch each other starve. And MSM would rather televise / cheerlead such skullduggery.
Lack of jobs and decent wages keeps erstwhile consumers from buying despite all the fictitious analysis the business press keeps manufacturing
Not to mention the load of debt alot of people are carrying.
Yes, can’t forget the debt.
Pithy, excellent post, thank you.
When and how does the lie machine finally meet reality, that’s my big question.
I think the reality is not too far away. It’s all out there – no jobs, no health insurance, stores closing, and most of all, no one is shopping. The malls are deserted and the stores are almost empty. I realize that what I have mentioned is not Wall Street, but the beginnings are at the bottom and bubbling up. Soon the rich will begin to feel the results.
Yep. And seems like the one thing uniquely untouched is the lie machine. Bullshit on an electronic screen, the all-saving commodity. According to something.
I really fear fresh war. E.g. our latest mischief in Colombia, but could be anywhere among the usual current imperial greatest hits.
I think Obama’s a puppet whose pliability/malleability/limits are being tested by the mobsters who run things (the Bank, the MIC). So far they’re finding him to their taste.
The US was still the largest manufacturing nation in 2004, almost larger than #2 and #3 combined.
Finance is too big a piece of our GDP, but it isn’t all the US does.
The US has lost 30% of its manufacturing jobs since 2001. I agree debt is a large part of this equation. We can’t go back to the level of lending that we had. Because of the high levels of endebtedness and the generally poor shape of the economy, there aren’t a lot people who want new loans. However banks have been dicking over small businesses and driving many of them out of business by cutting off or back their credit lines even those who have had no financial problems so far. A lot of the debt that Americans are carrying should just be written off but this won’t happen until conditions get much worse.
To make an economy work people need to have money to purchase goods and services. That means jobs with disposable income or else they are confined to the basic survival purchases. The only confidence is that their job might be secure, and they don’t have that.
But we don’t have jobs because we’ve closed our manufacturing and all the jobs are low wage like gardening, restaurant work and so forth.
Our problems are deep and structural. Our economy is no longer capable of sustaining itself. The last plow was giving people credit to allow them to buy and the financial sector made money by selling this credit. But at some point they need to pay the principal and without a good job that ain’t happening.
The banks face writing off all those non recourse loans and that puts them in deep doo. Poor shareholders.
The housing thing had a big ripple effect in construction, furniture etc. malls, exburbs roads… all that on credit which is in trouble, and real estate prices are in the tank thanks to the bubble.
Fixing the banks is not going to make the required structural changes.
The wage situation is worse than you portray. Even manufacturing wages have not risen in real terms for decades. It’s a classic race to the bottom (which also supports low price stores, industrial ag, etc. cause consumers can’t afford quality products), resulting in a more & more skewed income distribution. Basically stems from the market situation in which employers have all the power and workers have none. The only times when workers could get a bit of a deal was when unions (now corrupt) fought for it, and with a little FDR help. Otherwise labor gets excluded from the feeding trough. Consequently need to borrow to maintain standards of living, with the financial industry consequently taking over the economy, with predictable bubbles & crashes.
Thanks, I fear that when we will wake up is when there’s no choice.
Consequently need to borrow to maintain standards of living
And I fear that keeping wages low seems to direct more of the economy toward financial firms.
That’s true. But for business to make the structural changes, credit has to be avialbel for new businesses to operate. So, we do need to get the big banks to lend. If they won’t we need to nationalize them and go from there.
There are two investments that corporations could make that would have the greatest ROI in this environment:
Pay their taxes or even donate extra to the government
Increase the wages of the workforce that they currently have
Guess what things corporations are definitely not doing.
Huh? I presume you forgot the snark tag. More revenues to the govt would go either into war or back to corps thru programs like Medicare Part D. And the corps can get much more bang for their buck by buying pols with campaign contributions than by paying taxes.
First of all, it wasn’t snark.
The return comes from a large reduction in the deficit and growth in debt. That has the effect of reducing the expectation that interest rates will jump as the economy returns to growth.
And the economic insight is that corporations can make more money with an honest game than with a stacked game. Not the more money that comes from radical differences in income, but the vaster greater money that comes from a broad group of people with sufficient income to be consumers again.
And the reason that doesn’t happen is because it flies counter to 30 years of business philosophy.
I know I am contributing to the continued down turn. I am not spending on anything except for the bare necessities. And everything is in cash. Credit card companies don’t like me anymore.
Thanks for this post. Getting something on health care has been on the front burner in most peoples’ minds here, including mine, especially since the other side revealed its complete lying, ruthless, depravity this summer. But other long run crises bubble away, such as the ruined economy and global warming, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Despite the green shoots talk, we are not out of the woods yet. Remember that smart people (with far better predictive records than anyone in the corporate media or official circles of power) predicted that a ‘W’ or ‘double-dip’ recession was a distinct possibility. I think it is far too early to dismiss that possibility because I trust people like Krugman, Roubini, Stiglitz, and Galbraith far more than people like Summers, Mankiw, and Bernanke.
The question is whether the green shoots are from new productive acticity in the real economy, or the effluvia of more financial rent seeking from government bailouts in an under regulated financial system. If it is the latter, then we may be in for a double dip. That would be very bad news, unless the Obama adminstration starts breaking away from its surrender to the bad advice of people like Emanuel, Summers, etc.
I remember more secure days long ago when it was possible to bask in imnagined the security that the powers at be could at least keep their crummy system running. We cannot afford that luxury now.
thanks, and my fear is that the green shoots are partly a result of investors getting back into the market before the actual valuation of the toxic loans/derivatives is reached. The investment houses holding onto those bits of garbage are hoping that everyone will forget and as Greenspan expected, the other shoe will not fall so continued buying will keep it ever from hitting the floor.
I heard an interview with James Galbraith, and he made the same point as eCAHNomics did above. The age and employment situation will stay bad for awhile. Almost everyone who falls behind on their mortgages now go on to foreclosure. The system is still built on the assumption that the consumer can some how find ever more to spend, but consumers are scared and are continuing to save as much as they can, which makes sense on an individual level, but is leading us to a weak from of the paradox of saving. And I say ‘weak from’ in my admittedly optimistic supposition that the current ‘very gradually getting worse more slowly’ will shortly turn into mere stagnation.
So the danger is that the real economy will not produce enough revenue from ordinary peole actually making and doing useful things for the rent seeking sector to cover up the bad debts. If that happens then we will have another financial crisis (one hopes smaller than the previous) and a double dip.
There is also a long run cost. As Stiglitz, Roubini and Galbraith have said, the best way out of the mess is for the US to use fiscal policy to encourage public and private investment that will increase future productivity and reduce future effective net debt service as a proportion of GDP. Such projects would include funding state governments to repair and maintain infrastructure, crash enegey conservation education and investment program, general education and worker retraining, energy efficient transportation investment. But little of that was done. We are losing our chance to get that kind of big bank for the buck and fiscally responsible stinulus, and needed investment in any case done at a cheap cost.
The only good thing that I can see, and that may see us through, is that the most effective part of the fiscal stimulus was purposefully backloaded to kick in over the next two years. That may see us through.
I am mystified by the weakness of the Obama economic policy, it is even weaker than Summers’ previous statements on the proper design of fiscal stimulus would indicate. But at least Summers’ is technically competent, even if he may be misaken on many things, and he designed a stimulus for the long haul. That is the one hope I have we may be able to see things through to the next election.
On the other hand, the business and financial reporters mindlessly sit there watching for signs that Olde Timey consumption spending on whatever, as long as it feeds the rent seeking financial machine, “IS BACK” –as if they want to live in Groundhog day forever.
Yes, stimulus should be aimed at re-industrializing the country in an energy sustainable and environmentally less damaging way. That way when the stimulus is over there will be tangible enduring benefits from it. Healthcare and education are two other areas that could benefit from long term investment. All of this is what our political leadership should be doing. It is not however what they are doing or will do.
wesgpc,
I haven’t seen any evidence of new productive activity, so I guess the :geen shoots” are due to the “effluvia.”
for the LIFE OF ME I can NOT understand why the administration doesn’t simply “make funds available for loans and nothing but loans” to which the bank will be entitled to a finders fee of a few percentage points.
R
why the HELL does the money have to go to the loan for the bank to decide how they want to spend it?
this president has a REALLY slow learning curve
Thanks Ruth, this is an excellent post.
Thanks very much. Rather dry subject matter and details, and I’m pleased so many people read this.
Also; Yes, I just tend to go to Roubini because he spells it out thoroughly.
I found Roubini’s last economic assessment mealymouthed. There was a lot of “if consumers don’t come back” blah, blah, blah. Well consumers aren’t coming back so he should say that the economy looks like it will tank. Roubini has been criticized by some for pulling back on his predictions once he got recognition for his Dr. Doom stuff.
As I said then, it is more informative to look at how the following 3 phases play out. What happens to the stock market between now and the end of the year. What happens next year: stimulus funds, election year, continued high unemployment, more foreclosures and underwater mortgages, bad state budget deficits. And depression in 2011.
I wonder whether the consumer will ever just stop buying crap that they don’t need, like all the Chinese imported stuff at Wal-Mart. How many sets of towels, dishes or useless knick-nacks can we afford? Is the “sport” of shopping dying yet?
An added note, since I need to get off now – price controls on fossil fuels might help avoid another run-up, fuel prices being the origination of the crisis, really, because the typical family had to run into debt to pay for the huge increase in its usual costs, fuel, then everything that had to be shipped with the huge fuel increased costs.
I also agree partially. It was the increase in energy prices that started Stiglitz’ seemingly out-of-the-blue babbling over the possibility of financial meltdown early this summer. I saw a couple of interviews with him where that what he wanted to talk about when the interview was supposed to be about the cost of the Iraq war or Global Warming.
On price controls, my conventional moderate economist side kicks in. I would prefer a crash energy conservation program (which would have a big technical education component), and a move to a carbon tax to increase the relative price of fossil fuels. Rebates would be used to restore real purchasing power levels, and could be used as part of a better desinged situmulus.
But I do agree that fluctuations in fossil fuels prices are a danger.
I also note that some cost-benefit analyses of Global Warming control policies completely omit the big short run benefits of policies to stabilize fossil fuel prices, which would mostly involve increasing their relative costs. That omission is a big and very objectively Official Technical Error that needs to be corected.
If alternative energy production substituted for fossil fuels it would be ideal, I agree, I just don’t know how to convert an entire system from the existing one, including power production.
instead of
“We are losing our chance to get that kind of big BANK for the buck and fiscally responsible stinulus,”
I meant to type
“We are losing our chance to get that kind of big BANG for the buck and fiscally responsible stinulus,”
probably a gloomy and morose Freudian slip.
there is evidence we are getting too much big BANK for the buck fiscal stimulus.
Another booboo from typing to fast, in 46 above, I meant to type”
I agree. It is a race between the effect of this years mortgage resets and recasts, and the effects of long term unemployment, AND the ability of consumers to spend fast enough to keep the banks out of hock.
You got that right! It’s a race because the Industry knows consumers now have limited buying power. Their race is to see which one of them will garner the last bloody shreds of the American Dream of living well.
I don’t want to step on anybody’s toes here but there are people that have to buy their grocerys on credit cards. Now, I am not saying people don’t choose to do that. What I am saying is that some people have to because they have been unemployed or under employed for so long they have no choice. The credit card industry knows this and is very happy to charge them usery fees up to 36% interest. Those people are having to pay enormous amounts just to feed their family.
You are correct that there will be no recovery without stimulus to the people or legislation to control the basic necessities. When a country is in such dire condition as ours it does not matter whether the right scream socialism. It really is a matter of survival.
The whole problem is that this country no longer compensates workers and investors on the basis of hard work and real astuteness. Wealth comes from wealth, from position, and from the social connections that these produce, not from skill or effort. This is why we now have an income distribution in this country that is on a par with Cote d’Ivoire.
Those in the financial sector have made phenomenal amounts of money, as have those who nominally manage large corporations, by betting large in Wall Street’s casinos using their huge personal resources backed by the corporate moneys that belong to actual investors (those with 401Ks, pensions, savings accounts, and the like). These fat cats don’t just shuffle their own riches back and forth between them–they cover their losses and raise the stakes using the capital that would otherwise drive a healthy economy. Mergers and so-called cost-cutting thus divert money from production (research and development, wages, tooling, materials, etc.) to cash positions, speculative real estate dealings, and stock maneuvers.
I fear that this situation is likely to be self-sustaining up to the moment of the final crash. Until and unless we choke off the wealthy gamblers’ access to the cash cow, regulatory reform seems pretty much futile to me. That means we have to make the rich less rich. Period. We need to raise income and estate taxes to historical highs and make sure that they are paid. Do that, and solutions to many many of the nation’s other problems fall into place, from corruption and lobbying to paying for health care.
I agree with this. We have to get the distribution of wealth back to where it was in the 1950s and the only way to do that is through taxation and Government sponsored investments that result in fair returns for productive work at the expense of financial manipulation.