Posted on 07/15/2008 9:07:59 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free
Airlines are toast for the next year. Energy prices are absolutely un-democratizing travel to the point that only the very rich will be able to fly soon. EVEN if we start drilling now (and we should), we won't see the benefits for a few years. (Not 10 like the Dems say, but it would take a couple of years from permission/leasing to actual gas at the pump).
The fact that GM is actually in the zone of bankruptcy is seriously troubling---and of course it's not all the cost of energy, but bad management, union pressures, and above all, the contracts years ago that bloated their labor exposure on health care and retirement.
Couple all this with the political situation, which is terrible no matter who wins. McCain might want to balance the budget---but with a Dem Congress and Senate, can he? I seriously doubt it. Will he fight to do so? Are you kidding? Against his "friends" across the aisle?
Obama, on the other hand, wouldn't even try to fix anything, but would try to socialize everything, ballooning our deficits and killing the dollar.
I don't see a lot of sunshine here.
The problem is, even a President McCain will have to FIGHT for these: will he? Has he ever indicated a willingness to FIGHT THE DAMN DEMOCRATS on anything? No. He has only fought his own people.
Voinovich is calling for a ‘Manhattan Project’ energy policy. I would think calling for a Kennedyesque ‘Moon Shot’ is more along the lines of what is called for, given the secrecy history of the Manhattan Project. But then the Pubbies aren’t known for publicity savvy or sound leadership since RWR left the scene.
I guess it would depend on what Voino has in mind. If it’s DRILLING as well as all sorts of other technologies, fine. If it excludes drilling, forget it.
DOOOMED!!! Dogs and Cats living together, TOTAL ANARCHY!
This article is dead on, and so are we. There is nothing you can do, preparing is futile, it’s over /not sarcasm
If you see an iceberg ahead, the moral thing to do is shout the warning. Not let the passengers sleep until impact.
It is just a matter of knowing what to expect. I’m not a perma-bear. I don’t think the USA is toast, but I do want people to know that it truly is differnt this time, and that this is NOT a normal downturn or a mild recession. That’s all. I’m not predicting the Great Depression, the Sequel. I just want more Freepers to question their own defensive measures to weather a serious economic downturn.
Cash. Lose debt. Stay safe. No big purchases. Don’t be seduced into big, illiquid investments with a lot of downside risk. You think anybody’s listening? I’m howling at the moon. I’m preaching to the choir. Those who are really bearish because they know what a liquidity crisis means, and because they know the magnitude of losses in the financial sector and what it means for real estate values to plunge as far as they have with no bottom yet in sight.
But so many others are acting like we have already bottomed and the economy isn’t going to get worse. That’s a mistaken assumption. A painfully mistaken, false assumption. Yet understandable. An entire generation has never seen bad economic times, so they are clueless, quite literally. Their parents thought the 70s was a one-time event that our brilliant government has learned from and will avoid in the future. Little do they know...
I’m not trying to hook the membership on anti-depressants. I’m just trying to raise the alarm and I suspect my attempt is in vain. I should shut up and save the forum the grief. Stupidly, I don’t know when to quit.
I’ll say this much. You don’t hear much anymore from Freepers who were touting Dow 16,000 and “its the best time to buy, ever!”
I agree that the FED is trying to inflate. We’ll see if deflation wins overall. What I’m reading now makes me suspect that the US government doesn’t have enough ink in the presses to inflate fast enough to head off eventual catastrophic deflation (I’m not talking Great Depression II, but more 1990s like Japanese deflation).
I don’t think they are really inflating, try as they might. No doubt they have crushed the dollar so some inflation has occurred but it seems to be offset at least by deflation in areas other than food and energy. The FED is not really pumping yet, just robbing peter to pay paul. Lee Adler of www.capitalstool.com continues to demonstrate that every time the Fed pumps the economy, they turn right around and take it back. They seem to be tightening as much as loosening.
http://acheson.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/fed-drained-week-ending-662008/
I’m not sure that Bernanke has really started to run the Xerox yet. It only feels like it because we are getting inflation from a weak dollar. I think the national debt and continuing trade deficit have more to do with that, than the recent plunge in the FFR, since there is not any appreciable lending going on to stimulate inflation.
Not really. I agree with you and it helps me to hear an informed person give their view.
I posted this the day Nouriel Roubini wrote it. Yes, the markets were already down 20% from peak. By late 2006 he was already predicting a bear market by the end of 2007. His prediction was a few months early. Now that he is seeing the depth of the losses and the extent of the liquidity crisis, he has revised his estimate to 40% off peak.
I find his prediction very plausible given the unique severity of the bank losses, lack of transparency, lack of willingness to lend, increasing difficulty of Joe6Pack to qualify for a mortgage, and forecasted foreclosure rates.
I’m becoming a broken record buy I honestly believe we are in a recession, the government numbers notwithstanding. More financial analysts seem to be coming to the same conclusion. I may end up eating crow, but I’m standing firm to my belief we are in a recession. I have been officially completely wrong so far, and we will see if that remains the case looking back.
I read that without knowing he prepared it for Congressional Testimony. That’s an interesting context. Thank you.
If the financial sector was the only one swimming in debt, I would be scared but not alarmed. My fear is, the financials are way deep in debt, but so is the government, so are corporations, so are the average people. Debt is overwhelming on every level in every sector.
This time it is different, and I can’t see who is going to be available to backstop who. Everybody is going to be looking to be looking elsewhere to bail out their debt. The bulls are now talking about the Sovereign Funds piling on so we can kite our catastrophic personal/corporate/banking/governmental debt even further. It is not going to happen. This is a global liquidity/insolvency crisis, period.
Another positive, real estate, going back to the 1830s, always comes back. Sometimes it takes 5 years, but it always comes back.
As for the backstop, you are right. The backstop has to be confidence. This can change on a dime, esp. over energy (no, home prices per se don't have anything to do with energy, but they do affect people's overall view of the economy.) It's amazing, but two numbers that really don't mean all that much necessarily for the economy--the DOW JONES and the price of gas at the pump---greatly shape people's view of how the "economy" is doing.
One other ray of sunshine: property values always come back. Maybe not to double what they were worth, but always back to at least what they were worth. Unfortunately, this can take about five years (as it did from 1837-1842.)
Since you are a banking historian, how about some predictions? I realize you can know as you say these can change on a dime. Yet, as a banking historian, you must be among the most knowledgeable of Freepers about this credit crunch, the severity, the scale of losses, the effect of MBS and other derivatives, the complete lack of transparency, the huge portion of securities held to Level 3 where we are absolutely blind to their value, the humongous levels of corporate, personal and governmental debt.
Knowing as you do all of the above, what is your prediction regarding a recession, housing, the stock market, inflation, deflation and the economy?
Thanks!
“Inflation is not the result of paying for the war. It is the method by which we are paying for the war.”
Since that was the point of my post, I thank you for the support.
That having been said, this whole topic began last fall with the quant failures. That is. their models couldn't account for three deviations from the standard. That is, IMO, today's market is too much of a deviation from the historical to which Roubini refers.
yitbos
“The U.S.A. economy has been growing nicely for more than 6 years now. GW’s tax cuts have added immensly to the federal coffers. U.S. deficit spending is down vis a vis total spending for several years.”
Reducing deficit spending still means that you have been adding to the debt each year, albeit at a declining rate. Dubya has greatly increased the national debt on his watch. It’s no trick to gun the economy with deficit spending. That is standard Keynesian practiice. Perhaps you are commending Dubya for being a Keynesian, but I doubt it.
“W’s tax cuts have added immensly to the federal coffers”
This indicates to me that you have likely taken your economic education from famed economists Rush and Hannity. If you would prefer to learn from Reagan’s own economists you would find that this would be an historic first.
Reagan’s tax cuts didn’t increase the take to the Treasury, and it’s extremely unlikely that Dubya’s did either. But Reagan’s cuts did do exactly what he intended it to do - to grow the economy without losing as much revenue to the Treasury as static analysis predicted.
Reagan’s economic team forecast that the tax cuts would cause enough growth to recoup some 60 cents of each dollar lost through rate cutes. They came within pennies of their forecast, the revenue recouped was over 60 cents. But in no fashion did the rate cuts generate more revenue than they lost.
If you would care to research this on your own find yourself a copy of Martin Anderson’s “Revolution”. Anderson spends considerable time debunking what he calls “the myth of the supply-siders” and explicating what he and the rest of Reagan’s team were actually doing. Anderson was one of Ronald Reagan’s principle advisors going back to his days as Governor.
Separating out the effects of tax cuts versus all the other inputs affecting Treasury receipts is a complex business. Lawrence Lindsey, Dubya’s first economic advisor, did exactly that when he was a Harvard prof. The study is published as “The Growth Experiment” . The only tax cut that paid for itself was the capital gains tax cut, which ironically was signed by Carter. The Reagan cuts behaved as Reagan’s team predicted they would.
I’m not as financially astute as you are. Could you please put explain that again in layman’s terms? Thanks.
Are you saying that the market is so different from history that Roubini’s prediction is reasonable, or are you sayind that we just can’t possibly know since we have nothing like this to compare to, or what? I am not clear on your meaning. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.