|
Below is an excerpt from a commentary originally posted at www.speculative-investor.com on
22nd February 2009.
Over the past two months we've explained why we think a great depression is
on the cards. We are not 'doom-and-gloomers' who relish the prospect of an
economic debacle; in fact, we very much hope that our depression prediction
proves to be way off the mark. Our analysis of the economic situation is simply
heading where logic takes it.
This is a case where we would like to be proven wrong and are diligently looking
for reasons why we could be wrong. Unfortunately, at this stage we haven't
come across a good counter-argument. The consensus seems to be that things
won't get anywhere near as bad over the next few years as they were during
the 1930s because, well, because they just can't. Our retort is that the economic
situation is far more precarious today than it was during the months following
the 1929 stock market crash, so why is it so hard to believe that another "great
depression" lies in store? To support our view we cite the following:
1. The credit expansion of the past 10 years was much bigger than the credit
expansion of the 1920s, leading to the situation where debt is a higher percentage
of GDP than it was at the outset of the 1930s depression.
2. Due to the greater magnitude of the more recent credit expansion and much
faster growth in the supply of money than occurred during the 1920s, there
is a more troublesome mismatch between production and consumption today than
there was at the outset of the 1930s depression. Another way of saying this
is that more money was ploughed into ill-conceived 'bubble activities' during
the past 10 years than during the 10 years leading up to the depression of
the 1930s.
3. In misguided efforts to help rejuvenate their respective economies the
governments of today are making the same mistakes that were made during the
1930s, only more rapidly and on a grander scale. For example, governments are:
trying to prevent prices from falling to their natural levels, encouraging
and propagating the further expansion of debt, propping up failed business
ventures, increasing the burden that the government itself places on the economy,
creating a more uncertain environment and thus reducing the incentive to invest
for the long-term, and taking actions designed to reduce savings at a time
when inadequate real savings is a big part of the problem.
4. There is about one quadrillion dollars of financial derivatives that have
to be accounted for today that didn't exist during the 1930s. We don't think
the derivatives issue is close to being the most important economic problem
out there today, but it adds to the overall risk.
So, what are we missing? Why don't the above points suggest that another great
depression is a high-probability outcome?
We suspect that those who believe a great depression to be almost out of the
question will attempt to substantiate their optimistic view by noting that
according to the official GDP number the US economy only shrank by 1% (around
4% annualised) during the final quarter of last year. Our first reaction to
such an argument is that given the plunges in house prices, auto sales, employment
and the PMI (Purchasing Management Index), as well as the virtual collapse
of the banking industry, you would have to be very gullible to believe that
the US economy only shrank by 1% last quarter. In any case, if we are currently
at the equivalent of Q1-1930 then there should currently be MINIMAL evidence
of depression in the official statistics. Note, for instance, that the US economy
appeared to be doing so well during the first few months of 1930 that President
Hoover declared the downturn to be over in April of that year. If anything,
the surprise over the past couple of months has been the almost total ABSENCE
of economic recovery signs. Our view has been that there would be an economic
'false dawn' during the first half of this year followed by a resumption of
the deterioration, so the relentless weakness is a little disconcerting. It
is also worth noting that GDP numbers will tend to understate changes in the
overall economy. The reason, as discussed in previous commentaries, is that
despite its name the GDP calculation yields an estimate of NET output, not
gross output. Specifically, it fails to count the intermediate stages of production
and thus weights consumption spending -- the most stable part of the economy
-- at more than double its true weighting.
We suspect that those who believe a great depression to be a very remote possibility
will also point to the inflationary policies of central banks, in which case
they should explain exactly how counterfeiting money could make an economy
stronger. In a recent article entitled "Printing
Like Mad", Frank Shostak explains that creating money out of nothing can
only make things worse. Where is the logical flaw in Shostak's argument?
We aren't offering a free trial subscription at this time, but
free samples of our work (excerpts from our regular commentaries) can be viewed
at:http://www.speculative-investor.com/new/freesamples.html.
|