Display:
says Robert Reich.

Problem is, consumers won't start spending until they have money in their pockets and feel reasonably secure. But they don't have the money, and it's hard to see where it will come from. They can't borrow. Their homes are worth a fraction of what they were before, so say goodbye to home equity loans and refinancings. One out of ten home owners is under water -- owing more on their homes than their homes are worth. Unemployment continues to rise, and number of hours at work continues to drop. Those who can are saving. Those who can't are hunkering down, as they must.

Eventually consumers will replace cars and appliances and other stuff that wears out, but a recovery can't be built on replacements. Don't expect businesses to invest much more without lots of consumers hankering after lots of new stuff. And don't rely on exports. The global economy is contracting.

My prediction, then? Not a V, not a U. But an X. This economy can't get back on track because the track we were on for years -- featuring flat or declining median wages, mounting consumer debt, and widening insecurity, not to mention increasing carbon in the atmosphere -- simply cannot be sustained.

The X marks a brand new track -- a new economy. What will it look like? Nobody knows. All we know is the current economy can't "recover" because it can't go back to where it was before the crash. So instead of asking when the recovery will start, we should be asking when and how the new economy will begin. More on this to come.

H/T to Jessie of Le Café Américain whose sometime sig line is apropos here:

"The banks must be restrained, and the financial system reformed, and balance
restored to the economy, before there can be any sustained recovery."

More from Jessie's post There Will Be No Recovery:

The median wage must generally increase for consumption to resume, and for this to happen the heavy taxes of the financial sector and the oligarchs on the real economy must be lowered significantly in proportion to its size.

There is reason for pessimism that this can happen voluntarily. I have come to the conclusion that there is a pathological drive in some small portion of the population to acquire and control and devour rather than consume, even to their own destruction.

Amen to that.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Jul 12th, 2009 at 02:57:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the heavy taxes of the financial sector and the oligarchs on the real economy must be lowered significantly in proportion to its size.

So the solution to the problem of low median wages is to reduce taxes for the very rich ??? My arse.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Jul 12th, 2009 at 05:05:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think that's the meaning. I think the author is using tax in the meaning "to make onerous and rigorous demands on". Note the proposition "on the real economy". I was puzzled at first as well, which suggests that this is poorly written (and I've no idea what "in proportion to its size" means).
by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Sun Jul 12th, 2009 at 05:13:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's making the point that the financial sector TAXES the real economy.

Which is true, although the wording could be clearer.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jul 13th, 2009 at 05:28:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Having a financial sector is taxing...

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jul 13th, 2009 at 05:32:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series