|
|
 |
|
It Is Far Worse Than In 2000
Extracts from The Richebächer Letter - May 2006
THE NEW U.S. ECONOMY
The policy dilemma currently facing the United States can be simply stated.
Economic growth has become completely dependent on consumer spending, and
this, in turn, has become completely dependent on rising house prices
providing the collateral for the most profligate consumer borrowing.
This borrowing has become a necessity because income growth has abruptly caved
in. Rock-bottom short-term interest rates and utter monetary looseness were
the key conditions fostering altogether four bubbles: bonds, house prices,
residential building and mortgage refinancing.
What developed is an economic recovery with an unprecedented array of
escalating imbalances: ever-declining personal savings; an ever-widening
current deficit; exploding government and consumer debts; and, on the other
hand, a protracted shortfall in business fixed investment, employment and
available incomes.
We must admit that the staying power of this extremely ill-structured and
debt-laden recovery and the stubborn buoyancy of the financial markets have
rather surprised us.
But this only lengthens the rope with which to hang oneself. What American
policymakers and most economists studiously keep overlooking is that the
credit bubbles are doing tremendous structural damage to their economy. The
longer the bubbles last, the greater the damage.
DEBT EXPLOSION VS. INCOME IMPLOSION
This time, we want to focus on the dramatic shortfall of employment and income
growth that radically distinguishes this recovery from all its precedents in
the postwar period. It must have a particular cause, but where is it? In
search of its causes, we contrast, first of all, credit and debt growth with
income growth.
Over the five years from 2000–2005, total
debt, nonfinancial and financial, has increased $12.7 trillion in the United
States. This compares with a simultaneous rise in national income by $2.1
trillion. For each dollar added to income, there were $6 added to
indebtedness.
In real terms, national income increased little more than $1 trillion.
Last year, U.S. private households added
$374.4 billion to their disposable income and $1,204.7 billion to their
outstanding debts. Inflation-adjusted disposable income grew $115.7
billion. It is a growth pattern with exploding debts and imploding income
growth.
To make our point perfectly clear: The present U.S. economic recovery has
never gained the traction that it needs for self-sustaining economic growth
with commensurate employment and income growth. As to its main cause, all
considerations lead to the conclusion that it must reside in the protracted,
appalling shortfall in business fixed investment. Investment spending is,
really, the essence of economic growth.
Our own considerations begin with the recognition that the U.S. economy is, in
every single respect, in far worse shape today than it was in 2000, and also
that there is no other bubble in sight to replace the housing bubble.
Everything depends on the housing bubble to rapidly reflate once the Fed eases
again.
Our strongly held assumption that the U.S. economy is in a most precarious
condition basically has two reasons. One is the extravagant size of the
housing bubble, involving the whole financial system to an unprecedented
extent. The other is the grossly ill-structured economy, replete with
imbalances inhibiting sustained economic growth.
CONCLUSIONS:
Forecasts for the world economy are generally optimistic in the expectation
that the U.S. economy will continue its global pull with continuous strong
growth. We think the anemic and extremely unbalanced U.S. economic recovery is
in its last gasp.
Our key consideration is that the U.S. economy has become perilously addicted
to asset inflation in general and the housing bubble in particular. Both
rising asset prices and the rising dollar had their foundation in carry trade
of astronomic scale. While interest rates may still appear rather low compared
with the inflation rates, the Fed’s rate hikes have pulled the rug from under
the dollar-based carry trade.
Former Fed Chairman Paul
Volcker once said: "Sometimes I think that the job of central bankers is to
prove Kurt Richebächer wrong." A regular contributor to The Wall Street Journal, Strategic Investment and several
other respected financial publications, Dr. Richebächer's insightful
analysis stems from the Austrian School of economics.
|
|
|