Bush Crashed America, Obama Brought It Back: How Could the Dems Lose?

In the wake of Trump’s electoral victory, commentators of all political persuasions are castigating the Democratic Party for ignoring the concerns of rural voters, the flyover states, and working-class Americans in general. 

The irony is that it was the Democratic administration of Barak Obama that relieved the gravest concerns of these constituencies, who lost jobs and homes in the wake of the 2007-2008 Bush Financial Crisis, and regained them under the Obama Recovery. 

If concerns remained, it was only because the Democratic Party and the campaign of Hillary Clinton failed to deliver this winning economic message.  Left to the mercies of a lying demagogue, it is no wonder that ordinary Americans believe they are worse off because of “liberal” Democratic policies.

The George W. Bush Crash was the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.  Because of deregulation and lax oversight by the Republican administration, investment houses lied about the riskiness of their securities, covertly traded unrated securities in the shadow banking system, and accumulated debt without regard to risk.  Risky mortgages were pushed on ordinary consumers, who piled on more debt, and risky securities were represented as gilt-edge to unknowing consumers and managers of public finances.  Then the crisis hit:

·        At the height of the crisis, in September 2008, there was a bank run on money market funds that threatened to collapse the entire US financial system.

·        Treasury Secretary Hank Paulsen asked Congress for a $700 billion bailout for the Wall Street banks.

·        By the time the markets had stabilized, US unemployment doubled to 10.1%, and median household wealth fell by 35%. 

·        Housing prices dropped 20% from their 2006 peak.

·        People lost their homes when they could no longer pay their mortgages.

If Americans have economic concerns today, there is the cause.  If Americans’ financial well-being has stagnated, it is because they have been catching up from the Bush Crash. 

The story is a simple one:  Republicans deregulated the financial system, Wall Street bankers made money, and ordinary Americans lost their jobs and their homes.  To add insult to injury, Wall Street was bailed out while the ordinary taxpayer paid the bill.

The report of the U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission says that “the crisis was avoidable” and that it was caused by these failures of Bush-era oversight:

·         Widespread failures in financial regulation

·         Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance

·         Too many financial firms acting recklessly

·         Excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street

·         Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis

·         Systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels

It has taken until now – eight years – for the economy to recover from the Bush Crash of 2008.  And how did we come back?  It was the Democratic administration of President Barak Obama that brought us back from the brink, and held things together while the banks were nursed back to health and employment recovered.  It was the greatest economic comeback since the end of the Great Depression.

Did we hear about this from Hillary?  Did she position the Democrats as the champions of ordinary Americans?  Did she take a clue from Bernie’s broader appeal?

Whatever the outcome in the Electoral College this time, remember that a majority of voters chose a more enlightened and democratic way.  At the next election, a progressive Democratic message will give voters a clear choice.  

But you need to make sure that Americans hear the message, care about it, and vote for it.

Financial Crisis and Social Conflict

Darfur refugee camp in Chad

The current financial crisis is resulting in extreme economic strains on countries around the world, and especially severe strains are being placed on developing nations. In China, the collapse of a large part of the export sector has led to massive unemployment and worries about the reintegration of workers returning to their former rural homes. Extremely poor and strife-prone nations like the Sudan appear to be vulnerable to even small increases in the general level of impoverishment. There are worries that as the financial crisis spreads, increases in poverty may stimulate civil conflict in many societies around the world.

The impact of a spike in poverty to civil conflict is addressed in a recent article, "Sudden impoverishment as a trigger of civil conflict" by Antonio Ciccone, of the Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Spain and CEPR Research Fellow. The analysis in the paper supports the hypothesis that that droughts in Sub-Saharan Africa that suddenly reduce income also raise the likelihood of civil conflict. The paper looks at data on 48 civil conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa that started during the 1980-2006 period and concludes:

If civil conflict onset is partly driven by sudden impoverishment, conflict outbreak in Sub-Saharan Africa should be more likely following below-average rainfall years. I find this to be the case. This result, combined with the effect of rainfall on income, allows me to estimate the effect of sudden impoverishment on the probability of civil conflict onset. My estimates indicate that a negative 5% income shock raises the likelihood of civil conflict by 15 percentage points.

A Chinese migrant laborer returns to his home in Hefei, in the eastern Chinese province of Anhui, on Nov. 7, 2008, after being laid off from his job in Guangdong. Copyright © 2008, RFA. Used with the permission of Radio Free Asia, 2025 M St. NW, Suite 300, Washington DC 20036.

The economic downturn resulting from the present financial crisis is threatening workers around the world with a sudden the loss of their jobs. In China for example, the collapse of a large part of the export sector has led to massive unemployment and worries about the reintegration of workers returning to their former rural homes. Even official Chinese government press releases acknowledge that the job picture is "grim" and that labor unrest is a "top concern". In Factories Shut, China Workers Are Suffering the New York Times reported:

For decades, the steamy Pearl River Delta area of southern Guangdong Province served as a primary engine for China’s astounding economic growth. But an export slowdown that began earlier this year and that has been magnified by the global financial crisis of recent months is contributing to the shutdown of tens of thousands of small and mid-size factories here and in other coastal regions, forcing laborers to scramble for other jobs or return home to the countryside.

PLA Soldiers Enter Beijing (1949), Chinese Civil War

Fast-rising unemployment has led to an unusual series of strikes and protests, but the big impacts will occur in a reverse migration when factory workers return to their rural villages. Because factory closings are still underway in the once-booming urban centers, it is too early to have reliable estimates of how many of China’s 130 million migrant workers are heading back to their villages. However, the numbers are growing enough to raise the worry of social unrest, especially given that the recent past has raised expectations of economic progress.

Problems inside China may complicate international relations:

There has been speculation that the Chinese central bank would devalue the currency in an attempt to prop up economic activity. President-elect Barack Obama said in October that China must change its currency practices "because it pegs its currency at an artificially low rate." It is worrying that continuing economic woes will add pressure for China to do that. With many nations around the world being in the same recessionary boat, the temptations to engage in protectionism may eventually become too great for some country to resist -- setting off a round of competitive currency devalutations.

China isn't alone. The financial crisis is also forcing other major nations to raise protective trade barriers:

Boris Yeltsin, President of the Russian SFSR, standing on a tank in front of

the parliament to give an address opposing the August 1991 coup.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard wrote an article that was published in The Telegraph with the catchy title Protectionist dominoes are beginning to tumble across the world. Russia is of course suffering financially because of the sharp decline in oil prices, and the international economic situation is adding to its woes. Now Russia is erecting trade barriers with import tariffs of 30% on cars, 15p% on farm kit, and 95% on poultry. Russia is not alone. "India and Vietnam have imposed steel tariffs. Indonesia is resorting to special "licenses" to choke off imports." As with China, Russia is facing internal unrest because of the economic crisis. The same article reported that there have already been labor protests in Russia because of a 13% fall in industrial output over the last five months. So far, there have been street protests in Moscow, St Petersburg, Kaliningrad, Vladivostok and Barnaul, and police crushed the "Dissent Marchers" in Moscow.

These initial protectionist actions are raising worries that the era of economic globalization may be coming to a close, and with unfortunate consequences. Not one to mince words, Evans-Pritchard concluded: "The last great era of globalisation peaked just before 1914. You know the rest of the story."

Australian infantry with gas masks, Ypres, 1917.

The age of globalization has not ended yet, but many more risks to the current economic regime could easily unfold during 2009. As the latest headines indicate, Israel Starts Gaza Ground Push in Bid to Halt Rockets, there are already enough potential sources of conflict in the world, without adding pressures from the financial crisis.

2009 Outlook

Pieter Breugel The Elder, The Blind Leading the Blind (1568),

Conservato alla Galleria Nazionale di Capodimonte, Naples

Humans seem innately clueless at predicting the course of their economies and financial markets, and most 2008 market predictions look pretty ludicrous now. Anyone looking to fellow mortals for clues to the financial course of 2009 should remember the parable: "Can the blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall into the ditch?"

To avoid the ditch, consider the following list not as a New Year's prediction but as an attempt to identify important factors and trends for consideration when contemplating the course of US and world economies and markets in 2009:


LONG RECOVERY, PERMANENT CHANGE

The financial crisis is part of a long term process of change. Some of the adverse changes will correct, but slowly. Some of the changes are permanent.

The immediate crisis is one of too-easy credit and poor risk management. It took years to build up consumer and government debt, and it will take years to work through the crisis brought on by that debt. The process of credit recovery has not even started. Consumers are still in debt and losing their jobs. They are under water with their houses, prices are still declining, and houses are still not affordable. As for the availability of credit, price discovery for toxic assets is still a long way off, and the day of highly leveraged credit is over.

The change in consumer behavior is a generational event. Consumers can now see the folly of spending themselves into debt, and they are rueing the consequences. It is likely that their embracing of a more frugal lifestyle is permanent. When the pace of economic activity recovers in the US, it will be to a lower level than the nation has been accustomed to.

The credit crisis is only one part of a long-term process of change that is affecting the entire world and will continue to put pressure on the US economy. After World War II the US was the only large industrial nation in the world with its plant, equipment, and work force remaining intact. The advantage that this gave the US economically has eroded over time, first as Europe and Japan recovered, and then as the developing world took off.

The hollowing out of the US has gone on for decades. We have seen industry after industry leave these shores and set up where labor is cheaper and management is nimbler. I'm not talking about buggy whips and whale oil: Textiles, consumer electronics, auto manufacturing and many others are vibrant industries that generate money and are based on important technologies.

In the face of competition, US industry and wages did not keep up with the pace of change. Debt filled the lifestyle gap for many Americans until recently. Now that the credit bubble has burst, consumers can no longer maintain lifestyles by going into debt and going to the housing ATM. They can now see that they are poorer than they formerly thought. They can see that they do not have a birth right to luxury and a fine life style. Americans are part of the wider world, and competition for the good life is here to stay.

Industry after industry collapses in the US and prospers overseas. What are Americans to do when the last industry fails? Sell hamburgers to themselves? We can see how hollow the promise of a "service economy" was.

When the last industry fails, will we be able to invent an industry to take its place? Maybe we have been expending resources on the wrong things.

Yes, we are still rich compared to most people in the world. Yes, improvements in technology may continue to improve everyone's life, even if our relative position in the world declines. Meeting expectations is another matter. Maintaining a vibrant economy is another matter.

THE CRISIS IS WORSENING AND WE WILL SEE NEW KINDS OF REPERCUSSIONS

There are already warnings in the press that vulnerable retailers will start to fail. Mall vacancies are increasing, and it will be difficult to make consumers spend what money they have.

As tax revenues drop, states and municipalities are in severe budget trouble and will be forced to economize. They will be challenged to deal with public pension funds stresed by stock market losses. Layoffs of public employees threaten to add to economic woes, and essential services will be stressed.
The rolls of the unemployed are growing and people are running out of benefits. Many support networks are already stretched to the breaking point.

Baby boomers approaching retirement have seen their investments evaporate but have few prospects of being able to work longer to fill the gap.
Demand for goods and services is dropping, and even the official statistics may eventually reflect the deflationary reality.

The Obama administration will use fiscal policy to try to counter the drop in consumer spending and business investment. Already there are warnings that the initial stimulus package (as large as it is) will not be enough, and that Congress will have to pass another package later next year. We will see how far this policy gets, and how long its effects last.


INVESTING WILL BE DIFFERENT

I hate to say "it's different this time", but the world does change.

After the the Federal government's unprecedented intrusions into the financial markets this past year, financial markets are operating under more uncertainty than ever. When will failing enterprises be allowed to fail? How creditworthy is an apparently investment grade security? Who really owns an enterprise? Will the government honor its own guarantees to investors? These factors will drive valuations of securities for all the enterprises touched by Federal bailouts, but the government has changed its mind often enough to leave investors uncertain of the rules. As mentioned in a Dec 30 New York Times article, In 2009, Economy Will Depend on Unlocking Credit, investors will be hesitant to risk their money until they know the rules.

If investing has been politicized, one approach is to buy what the government supports. As Bill Gross implied in an interview (Big Brother Investing) in Forbes, some of the government's support rules have been established. If the government will continue to throw money at ailing financial institutions, it is presumably safe to invest in sufficiently senior debt of those institutions.

Finding wealth in the stock market is looking less likely. Consumer frugality, declining demand overseas, and the prospect of increased regulation suggest that corporate profitability is unlikely to return to levels seen in recent years. Government promises to consume a bigger share of economic resources. Less leverage and a lower investor risk appetite threaten to reduce the demand for equities.

Many observers suggest that investment-grade investment debt as the place to invest in the new year. Others worry that a surge in US debt issuance (to pay for bailouts and stimuli) will crowd out private debt. Whichever way it goes, a lot of money rides on the the government's issuance and the reaction of the bond market.

Some day in the future, Jim Rogers will be proven right, and we will see a definite and sustained renewal of the uptrend in overall commodity prices. It is hard to imagine this for 2009, but at some point prices will reach a level where those with a long-term planning horizon will start to accumulate commodities. Maybe some selected commodities are already at that point.

THERE IS A RISK OF MORE POLICY FAILURE

We have already seen the Federal government react wildly to the financial crisis with an ill-considered and ineffective bailout package for the financial industry. With this track record, there is more than enough reason to mistrust future government actions. A failure to restart the economy could lead to yet more wild measures.

Need a concrete example? A recent posting on The Big Picture (Low Mortgate Rates to Spur New Wave of Defaults) already suggested that a failure to restart housing could be met with a wild measure such as permitting "no appraisal" re-fi's. What a prescription for worsening the crisis -- extending loans to unqualified recipients who are already under water.

WORLD REACTIONS POSE SEVERE RISKS

Beggar Thy Neighbor. In a depression, every country wants to protect domestic industry from foreign competition, and one way of doing that without formal trade barriers is to debase your currency. The hope is to avoid protectionist reactions by debasing currency enough to make products cheap to trading partners and their products expensive to import. In view of the skyrocketing Federal deficit, the US might be well on its way to debasing its currency. If other countries follow suit, will any currency be worth anything?

However, other countries are in economic trouble too. Far from sinking the dollar, our trading partners may fight hard to debase their own currencies and support the dollar. On the other hand, they may lose patience with our sinking currency and let us sink.

Protectionism. The President-elect has already mentioned the possibility of raising trade barriers to protect American jobs. This is a sure way to worsen the crisis, which we can hope will be avoided.

Foreign Support of US Indebtedness. Trade partners have found it in their interest to park funds in US Treasury securities and to pursue currency policies supportive of exporting to the US -- and to supporting US over-consumption. Now that US Federal debt threatens to skyrocket, there is the oft-mentioned risk that China and others may cut their losses and withdraw support from Treasury prices and the dollar. However, these trade partners have much to lose from such a disruptive move. Continued deleveraging of the financial system should also tend to support the dollar.

PEOPLE WILL REACT TO THE CRISIS IN UNEXPECTED WAYS

Social Change in Developing Nations. Reduced demand in the First World for manufactured goods and natural resources is being felt in much of the developing world in terms of sharply increased unemployment in the export sector of their economies. Depending on their circumstances, different nations will face different challenges in managing the consequences of the downturn. There have already been protests by the unemployed in Russia. Will China be able to find a role for the newly unemployed, for example, reintegrating returning workers back into rural economies? Oil-rich nations may also be stressed as they cut back on consumer subsidies and public projects. The outcome of all these social and political stresses is far from clear, but we should remain alert for disruptive changes that could exacerbate the economic downturn.


Social Change in the US. This crisis has brought about big changes in lifestyle and attitudes for many Americans. Considering the degree to which elite groups continue to profit from the crisis at the expense of the majority of America, it is surprising that social reactions have been very muted so far. What kinds of reactions could arise? Extremist movements among the dispossessed hopeless? Violent reactions to economic reversals have happened before in this country. Or perhaps positive changes will occur, such as an increase in community participation and other cooperative ventures. Something unexpected in the human dimension may very well come out of this crisis.

Smarter Economic Policy. The American people may soon realize that budget deficits, easy credit, and unregulated financial markets have resulted only in wasting their precious, limited resources. Resources squandered on leveraged speculation and on unnecessary consumption and housing were unavailable for savings and investment. Without savings, there was no investment. Without past investment, America today lacks the human capital, national infrastructure, and efficient industrial processes necessary to compete in today's world and provide for the Americans of tomorrow. Good times are some time off in the future, beyond 2009, because it takes time to save, invest, and build an economy.


Surprises of Nature. Everything we do depends on the natural world, and that is changing too. Global warming always poses the risk of disrupting human enterprises through unexpected extremes in the climate.



CAN WE ADAPT TO CHANGE?

Evolutionary success depends on the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. We cannot predict the future, but we can watch events unfold and try to adapt. To do that, we need to know what kinds of events to watch for, and a framework in which to interpret events. The purpose of this list is to stimulate that process a little bit for 2009.

We are sure that readers have their own ideas, and we hope that they can improve on this framework and profit in 2009. Let me hear your thoughts.



Cassandra, Evelyn de Morgan (1855-1919),
De Morgan Centre, London

Policy for the Financial Crisis Should Target Those Most in Need

Speakers at a meeting of The Gerontological Society of America said that the brunt of the current economic and financial crisis will fall hardest on the elderly and the soon-to-retire of the boomer generation. This is no surprise, but bears more scrutiny. If younger workers and families are struggling financially, just imagine the problems for the elderly who have seen the value of their homes and their retirement accounts dwindle, with little prospect of having the time or the means of making up the deficit.

What to do now? The plight of the elderly and others most at risk well deserved special consideration by the President-elect and his team as they prepare policies and initiatives to cope with the financial and economic crisis.

Source:
New Economic Woes Hit Boomers, Seniors Hardest
The Gerontological Society of America
http://www.geron.org/About%20Us/Press%20Room/Archived%20Press%20Releases/54-2008%20Press%20Releases/415-new-economic-woes-hit-boomers-seniors-hardest

TALF Blows a Bigger Bubble, Keeps Markets from Clearing

The Fed created a new lending facility to promote consumer loans by supporting the ABS market. The announcement says:

The Federal Reserve Board on Tuesday announced the creation of the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF), a facility that will help market participants meet the credit needs of households and small businesses by supporting the issuance of asset-backed securities (ABS) collateralized by student loans, auto loans, credit card loans, and loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

Under the TALF, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) will lend up to $200 billion on a non-recourse basis to holders of certain AAA-rated ABS backed by newly and recently originated consumer and small business loans. The FRBNY will lend an amount equal to the market value of the ABS less a haircut and will be secured at all times by the ABS. The U.S. Treasury Department--under the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008--will provide $20 billion of credit protection to the FRBNY in connection with the TALF.

More details accompany the announcement, but the impact is clear: The TALF will sustain the consumer credit bubble and blow a bigger bubble, which will pop later and cause even greater pain. The consumer debt load is already too high for many, and there is already too much bad paper in the ABS market. How does the TALF help solve the problem?

If markets were allowed to clear, we would get out of this mess more quickly and resume a path of positive economic growth.

Source:

Press Release, November 25, 2008
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20081125a.htm

Citi Rescue Includes Equity Stake and Asset Guarantee

The new deal with Citi is that US taxpayers have invested $20 billion , plus we have guaranteed up to $306 billion in residential and commercial real estate and related securities. So, the Government has an equity stake in another ruined bank and is on the hook for $306B more.

Why are we investing more money in an instituion that has shown such absolutely foolish and short-sighted behavior? Just this Sunday, the New York Times published another increment in the unfolding saga of imprudent (nonexistent) risk management at Citi.

At least Citi is forced to lower the dividend (but not eliminate it). We can hope that some pressure is put on management to use the capital infusion to make loans, to keep the financial system working. Of course, that hope is predicated on the assumption that the best way out of the crisis is to get banks to make more loans. Wasn't that the problem to begin with?

The Government's aim is supposedly to bring stability to the overall financial system. In an era of networked information, why are we trying to fix a complex financial system with such blunt measures as multi-billion dollar bailouts of lending institutions? This is like trying to repair your iPod with a sledgehammer.

Sources:

Joint Statement by Treasury, Federal Reserve, and the FDIC on Citigroup
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/20081123a.htm

Citigroup Saw No Red Flags Even as It Made Bolder Bets
By Eric Dash and Julie Creswell
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/business/23citi.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=business&adxnnlx=1227553311-J4zSCQ6bXQ0PSrAM3tFLgQ

Rescue of Citigroup -- More Turbulence in the System

Bad news impacts markets, and so does uncertainty. If you do not know the rules of the market, or who the major players are going to be, you cannot form prudent estimates of the future of the market.

According to the latest report from the NY Times, it is too early to tell exactly how the bailout of Citigroup will be structured, but some level of assumption of troubled Citi assets will apparently be involved. Didn't Secretary Paulson decide that such purchases were not the best way to expend funds from the TARP? The source of the funds has reportedly not yet been decided, but the principle is the same.

If the Citi deal results in a general approach that can be applied to other institutions, that might help to remove some of the uncertainty, but in the face of such policy turbulence it will be hard to build confidence.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/business/24citibank.html?_r=1&ref=business

Redefining the Markets

The financial crisis and the responses to it are restructuring the markets:

Rather then look for a market bottom, look for how the crisis will morph next.

We are witnessing a redefinition of long term market landscape.

Mohammed El Erian, CNBC interview, 11/21/2008