Treating the wrong problem? Yes, that's what happens

[Skybird]

Ha, I give this in full length since it is an almost perfect verbalisation of my thoughts on the issue, and I think the author has hit the nail right on top.

It's not a crisis of confidence

By Michael Mandel

The real problem with the economy is that long accepted patterns of cross-border technology transfer, trade and finance are simply unsustainable.


Is the market and economic turmoil nothing more than a crisis of confidence? To listen to Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson, you might think so. "At the root of the problem is a loss of confidence by investors and the public in the strength of key financial institutions and markets," Bernanke told the Economic Club of New York on Oct. 15.


On Oct. 20, Paulson went further, explaining the bank recapitalization program this way: "Our purpose is to increase confidence in our banks and increase the confidence of our banks so that they will deploy, not hoard, their capital. And we expect them to do so, as increased confidence will lead to increased lending."

The implication of the Bernanke-Paulson view is that the underlying economic system is fundamentally sound, so that restoring trust in the financial system will put us back on a growth course. From that perspective, the infusion of massive amounts of capital into banks, which replaces the money lost in bad mortgages, will enable lending to begin again. Once investors see that all is well, then they will cease their irrational behavior, and start putting money back into stock markets and companies around the world.


Treating the Wrong Problem?

But what if the Bernanke-Paulson view is wrong? What if financial stress is a symptom, not a cause?

What if we face a wrenching readjustment of the global real economy rather than a crisis of confidence rooted in the financial system? What if Bernanke and Paulson are treating the wrong problem? What if investors, realizing that their long held assumptions about the global economy are wrong, are rationally bailing out of stock markets in almost every country, at least for now?

In fact, there's good reason to believe that the current crisis reflects a growing realization: Long accepted patterns of cross-border technological transfer, foreign trade and global finance are simply not sustainable.


Three Big Flows

For the past 10 years, global growth has been driven by three big flows. The first flow was the transmission of knowledge, technology, and business know-how from the U.S. and other industrialized countries to low-wage emerging economies such as China and India. Under the neutral name of "supply chain management," multinationals taught local suppliers to make shirts, laptop computers, and airplane rudders that could be sold around the world. Moreover, U.S. and European companies gave suppliers access to enough information that they could develop their own cell phones, software, and other tech products. The result: a massive improvement in productivity and living standards in emerging economies.
The second flow was the movement of goods and services from China and other emerging economies to the U.S. Massive amounts of production capacity was built around the world, assuming that the U.S. was always going to be the consumer of last resort. Indeed, the value of U.S. imports -- over $2.3 trillion in 2007 -- was larger than the entire output of Britain, the sixth-largest economy in the world. The result: Rising living standards in the U.S., rising employment, and production around the world.

The final flow, of course, was financial. The rest of the world lent U.S. consumers trillions of dollars to finance the trade deficit. The money flowed into the country in all sorts of ways, including cheap mortgages and cheap credit for cars and televisions that were made overseas. At the same time, companies in emerging markets were borrowing heavily to build the factories that were going to supply the developed world.


Something Had to Give

This tri-flow worked as long as everyone believed that American consumers could finance their debt. But here's the problem: At the same time Americans were borrowing, their real wages were falling -- and not just for the least educated. By BusinessWeek's calculations, real weekly earnings for college grads without an advanced degree have dropped every year since 2002.

You can't pay back rising debt with falling wages; something had to give.
The first thing that broke were subprime mortgages, given to less creditworthy borrowers. But once investors started to look, they realized that the entire global edifice was built on an impossibility. The tri-flow that had built global prosperity could not be sustained.


Good News and Bad News

That's why the financial crisis has spread across the globe. Investors are peering at every country, from Kuwait to Korea, asking the question: Is it sound enough to survive if American demand for imports falls? The problem is in the structure of the global real economy, not the financial system.

This is both bad news and good news. The bad news is that government injections of capital into banks around the world can slow the damage, but they cannot fix the basic problem. The global economy has to go through a readjustment process that will be difficult even if policymakers can restore confidence in the financial system.

The good news is twofold. First, the productivity gains in the emerging economies are real. Sooner rather than later, their growth will resume. Second, we do have a tool for easing the adjustment, and that's fiscal stimulus. With private demand for credit weak, governments can judiciously borrow and spend to help pump up growth and employment.
The final implication: Policymakers should stop talking about investor confidence as if it exists in a vacuum. Instead, they should focus on the real goal of stimulating the creation of innovative new goods and services that the U.S. can produce and sell on global markets. That would reduce the amount of borrowing the country has to do, and help create a sustainable global economy. This crisis is not any fun. But if it shakes up companies and government, and forces them to focus on innovation, the end result will be stronger, more solid economic growth.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...586959,00.html

All this does not mean that there are no changes in regulation of financial business in need. It means that we shall not expect miracles happening by implementing just these - and leave it to that. They will not happen if we leave it to that alone. Better regulations are a necessary, but not a sufficient precondition. Refocussing on the real economy and its structural probem in global trade patterns is the message of the day. Focussing on stock markets only and shareholder's trust, means to favor shine over substance and painting just the facade (in patriotic colours) - and then wondering why the rain still keeps falling through that broken roof, and groundwater still rising in the basement, and the heating failing and the walls in the living room rotting and coming down. Ouch!

[Brag]

Good article!
My question is, where has the money gone? If one guy loses his money, someone else must get it.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Brag

Good article!
My question is, where has the money gone? If one guy loses his money, someone else must get it.

So? I don't think so. It was bubble-money. That means it was made of hot air, and disappeared into hot air again. There was no real-economy value founding it, like in past times gold reserves served as a solid basis for the ammount of coin and paper money. Right that is the problem with this modern economy model, and what the article points at, indirectly!

P.S. the British bank has estimated the damage to the global economy from this current crisis, and it'sestimation is almost twice as big as that of the ICF: close to 3 trillion, the Brits say.

Just wait and see, I say. The final numbers will be much bigger than just 3 trillion, if that essay above is true.

[Hanomag]

I'm sorry what was that again?.... I was away from the keyboard...

I'm in Atlantic City NJ (east coast little version of Vegas)... going to drop my monthly allotment of 2000$ US on the slot machines...

Man the casino is packed... people just pumping endless dollars into the slot machines, tables, etc....

Ok.. so you were saying...?

[Brag]

Ha, Skybird. Someone took real money and sold hot air--gotcha.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Brag

Ha, Skybird. Someone took real money and sold hot air--gotcha.

Pardon...?

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Brag

Ha, Skybird. Someone took real money and sold hot air--gotcha.

I believe Skybirds thoughts are the same thoughts that losing on the stock market one is only losing "paper".

[Brag]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I believe Skybirds thoughts are the same thoughts that losing on the stock market one is only losing "paper".

if you bought paper for $100 and you sell for $50, you lost money. In the present crisis this is magnified by trillions. But the initial party who sold the paper for 50 made money.

[Skybird]

shares should represent real economy values. but if the shares reach up to a value that is not represented by the real economy value, some of these share values are obviously illusional. The illusion could collapse just any time. And lately it did. This is not about selling real good and items! this is about stockmarkets! there is a reason why economosts make a strict separation between stockmarket and the term "real economy".

Example today: in Germany, VW was a classical "Volksaktie", but Porsche since a long time has aimed at taking it over. Now they are close to it. That is the actual situation, and yesterday due to the relatively close deal for Porsche to get another wave of shares from VW so0 that Porsche gets the majority, the value of VW went skyrocketing into the air by a 180%. If you think that is much, it was nothing to today. For some time today, on paper VW was the most expensive company in all the world, the share price going over the top by another win of more than 300% to more than 1.000 euros . The german DAX completely was loosing today, but due to the paradox effects of VW shares alone nevertheless the DAX today ended with a solid plus - that nevertheless is distorting the real value of the DAX. Everybody knows that the VW shares are not worth these ridiculous ammounts of money, it'S just coming from psychological effects that everbody learns that VW shares become rare because Porsche is activating long prepared buying options for VW shares soon, thus VW shares become rare. But the humercial avialability tells oyu othign about the real economy value, the profit margins by investing into the VW industry, of the company. Or do you think VW really is the most vluable and expensive company in all the world...? Read my lips: it is a BUBBLE, and nobody denies it.



That'S what bubble-money is about.

If stockmarkets start to raise values that have no actual representation in the real economy, then you get problems sooner or later.

In some time, the VW paper will fall down again, even when it gets temporarily banned from trade, as it is demanded right now due to the massive distortions it inflicts on the rest of the market. Then, hundreds of millions of money suddenly will dissapear, although VW still is what it was before this fata morgana, not more, not less.

A fata morgana is real, you can see it, you can be sure that the pohenomenon itself is existent - you just see it, right? But what it shows you is unreal.

Stockmarkets are like an unreal tournament, seen that way.

If you look close, you see that much of america's economical and finacial probelms have something to do with creating bubbles, and then seeing collapsing again. There are some very serious distortions, and all world is affected by it. but the centre of the cause lies in america.

There is no perpetum mobile of making money, like there is no perpetum mobile in physics. One only needs to look close enough, or far enough into the future, to see the costs. A very popular cost for example is inflation.

[Diopos]

Originally Posted by Brag

...
if you bought paper for $100 and you sell for $50, you lost money. In the present crisis this is magnified by trillions. But the initial party who sold the paper for 50 made money.

Not really. He (the initial party) might have bought it $150.
It's a "loss control" situation.