1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Some Perspective: Comparing this Recession to 70's and 80's

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by MadMax, Feb 16, 2009.

  1. MadMax

    MadMax Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    74,005
    Likes Received:
    20,789
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/29163654

    Why This Recession Seems Worse Than '70s and '80s
    13 Feb 2009 | 10:59 AM ET

    If you think this recession is the worst since World War II, chances are you weren't born or working during the downturns of the 1970s and '80s, you're listening to President Obama too much or you're a white-collar worker in financial services.

    If all three are true, you may even think we’re on the verge of another Great Depression.

    At this point, the only thing that may be true is your age and employment status.

    “The current situation has nothing in common with the Great Depression,” says economist Steve Hanke of the Cato Institute and Johns Hopkins University. “The sooner they [in Washington] stop spinning the bad news story and say nothing, the sooner we’ll be more confident.”

    Hanke is not alone in dismissing what appears to be a potent cocktail of misinformation and doom and gloom, wherein the current recession—now in its 13th month—is already considered worse than the 16-month ones of 1973-1975 and 1980-1982.

    “We were pretty scared in ’82; things looked horrible for awhile," says Bob Stovall of Wood Asset management and a 55-year veteran of the securities business. “I don’t think you can say it’s worse than then; its different. You have changed the landscape but you did that in the Midwest when you forced a lot of rust-belt companies to the wall."

    “This time it's financial firms going out of business, instead of manufacturing ones, and the jobs are going with them," explains Stovall.


    “I do think that's part of it,” says Robert Brusca, chief economist at Fact & Opinion Economics, saying that. “They’re the ones making the pronouncements. People in the financial sector are getting crushed.”

    They’re not the only ones selling doom and gloom, though.

    “I don’t remember a president talking down the economy as much as President Obama,” says economist Chris Rupkey of Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi. “The economy is very psychological. There’s a herd instinct.”

    That herd instinct kicked into overdrive after the sudden collapse of Lehman Brothers, when many say the economy fell off a cliff and a classical cyclical downturn merged with a nasty one-of-kind credit crunch. So yes, economists agree things are bad, but they need to be put into perspective.

    Employment

    At this point, the current recession is worse than those of the '70s and '80s by only one statistical yardstick, and that’s the unusually quick ascent in the jobless rate—from 4.4 percent in March 2007 to 7.6 percent in January 2008.

    “People are reacting so adversely to this is because the job market has become so weak,” explains Brusca.

    But even though the sharp decline in payrolls over the past three months has been stunning, it is not as bad on a percentage basis as one period in 1974-1975, according to David Resler, chief economist at Nomura International. Resler says the economy would have to lose some 767,000 jobs a month over a three-month period from the current employment level to match that miserable performance.

    During the 1973-1975 and 1980-1982 periods the unemployment rate almost doubled (4.6-9.0 percent, 5.6-10.8 percent, respectively), which means a peak of about 8.6-8.8 percent this time around. In further contrast, during a ten-month stretch in 1983-1983, the jobless rate was above 10-percent.

    Nevertheless, that’s nothing compared to the Great Depression when the unemployment rate went from 3 percent to almost 25 percent in four years and national income was halved, notes Hanke in a recent column.

    Growth

    Thought it may be little consolation for the millions of unemployed, GDP is considered by economists to be the best and broadest gauge of a recession.

    That may seem also peculiar since the economy actually grew in the first two quarters of this recession, but some of that had to do with the Federal Reserve's early and aggressive interest rate cutting and the federal government’s first stimulus plan which quickly put money into people’s pockets.

    Given that backdrop, GDP contraction thus far has been modest. It’s down 1.1 percent vs. 3.1 percent in the 1970s period, says Chris Rupkey.

    And though the economy shrunk at a 3.8 percent annualized rate in the fourth quarter of 2008 and is expected to decline another 4.0-6.0 percent in the first quarter of 2009, imagine the reaction today to the 7.8 percent plunge in the second quarter of 1980 or consecutive swoons of 4.9 percent and 6.4 percent in 1981-1982.

    "Half of the workforce until now hadn't seen more than 16 months of recession—total," quips Resler. The past two short (eight months) and relatively shallow.

    During the 1990-1991 recession, the deepest quarterly GDP decline was 3.0 percent; in the 2000-2001 one it was 1.4 percent.

    “GDP hasn’t been that weak because the productivity increase is one of the best,” says Brusca. “You get a quarter or two that really knocks the level down,” he adds, and it looks like we’re at that stage now.

    This time other fundamental factors are playing a bigger role than the past.

    “Consumer spending will be bad,” says Resler. “We haven’t three consecutive quarterly declines in consumer spending since the 1950s.” He’s definitely expecting a repeat of that.

    It’s Still Bad

    Comparisons aside, no one is saying the current recession isn’t a painful one, and some see very little reason for optimism.

    “I can't identify anything than looks good,” says Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic Policy And Research, adding that business investment—which appeared to be holding up—posted its sharpest decline in 50 years in the final quarter of 2008.

    “I'd be shocked if we have growth this year,” says Baker, even though he expects the Obama administration’s stimulus plan to have a sizable economic positive impact.

    So may the words of the President and his advisors, say economists.

    “It’s not surprising that politicians exaggerate this,” says Resler, who predicts “The tone of the message is going to start changing immediately; now that we have the stimulus in hand, you enhance it by saying positive things.”

    Tunnel Thinking

    For all the comparisons with other recessions, exaggerated or not, the most meaningful one may be its duration. It is also the toughest.

    Economy: Full Coverage
    The consensus is this recession will end sometime between the second half of 2009 and the beginning of 2010. The pessimists say wait till next year—period.

    David Jones, CEO of DMJ Advisors, is among those who see “hints of stability.” By that he means, the rate of decline in areas like retail appear to be slowing.

    “We'll see the same thing happening on the housing side in the next couple months,” says Jones.

    “I'm just waiting for the shift in people’s expectations,” adds Rupkey.
     
  2. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    42,810
    Likes Received:
    3,013
    Did the 70's and 80's recessions require trillion dollar bailouts to avoid catastrophe?
     
  3. MadMax

    MadMax Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    74,005
    Likes Received:
    20,789
    Did this one REQUIRE it or did we do it anyway? I'm not sure I can definitively answer that question.

    I'm all for securing the banks...I'll take it a step farther, even, and tell you that our system of private banking (where the public sector is called on repeatedly to bail out the mistakes of the private sector) is deeply flawed and is opening me up to an acceptance of more nationalized banks...like those that countries we compete against in the global market have. I mean, how many times do we have to repeat a bank crisis (in its various forms) before we get that?
     
  4. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    42,810
    Likes Received:
    3,013

    one investment bank failed without any action, I don't think there is any doubt that it was required.
     
  5. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,925
    Likes Received:
    2,267
    Obama would rather score political points with his non-thinking drone voters as opposed to actually using the power of the presidency to improve the psychological perception of the economy. That's truly horrible leadership.
     
  6. Dubious

    Dubious Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,317
    Likes Received:
    5,089
    Yes it's horrible leadership to over hype situations so that political agenda's can be enacted. But once you get your war, er, legislation underway then you start the positive spin, like a projecting unreachable time lines and touting vastly underestimated costs.

    I don't think we will see Obama under a "Mission Accomplished" sign anytime soon though.
     
  7. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    42,810
    Likes Received:
    3,013
    So I guess bush started the economy's downturn when he initially asked for TARP funds to in his words avoid catastrophe?
     
  8. MadMax

    MadMax Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    74,005
    Likes Received:
    20,789
    Banks have collapsed before.

    Again...I was for the measures to secure the banks. But we go through this as we lurch from crisis to crisis. Remember what it looked like in Houston in the 1980's during the S&L crisis....not the same magnitude as AIG, granted. Every bank in Texas failed, but Frost Bank, I believe.
     
  9. rhadamanthus

    rhadamanthus Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,304
    Likes Received:
    596
    Amen. Too many strikes here already. Nationalize.
     
  10. weslinder

    weslinder Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    12,983
    Likes Received:
    291
    Do you mean nationalize for good? I do think that if we're not going to allow real bankruptcy, we should nationalize and liquidate.

    I know we have an effectively nationalized system, with the Federal Reserve as lender of last resort, but I just can't imagine banks run by bureaucrats doing much better. Effectively, that's what Fannie and Freddie were. History has proven over and over again that removing the profit motive does nothing to remove the greed from the system.
     
  11. rhadamanthus

    rhadamanthus Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,304
    Likes Received:
    596
    I'm just tired of our goofy system of public risk and private profit. Sure, the risks of such still occurring remain tangible under a nationalized system, but at least it's not a hard-encoded inevitibility.
     
  12. MadMax

    MadMax Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    74,005
    Likes Received:
    20,789
    What we're doing isn't working. We move from one crisis to the next. I haven't thought it all through yet...and probably won't unless someone is willing to pay me to do so....but the idea is a lot more appealing to me than it was before.
     
  13. BetterThanEver

    BetterThanEver Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    9,931
    Likes Received:
    189
    Didn't Iceland or Greenland become bankrupt with mostly US investments?

    I think this recession is more global than previous recessions, because of foreign investment in the US. We are still early in the recession, they are comparing only 3-4 quarters of a recession with 3-4 years of previous recessions. Of course, we haven't lost as many jobs.

    They should be comparing the same time intervals for comparable results.

    This recession is not as bad because the first 3 quarters doesn't match the peak unemployment rate of a previous recession(3 year period)?

    It's also strange they ignore the enormous amount of retirement wealth, that was lost. The amount of wealth was huge, because it held the retirement money of millions of baby boomers. In past recessions, there wasn't nearly as much retirement money from the population.
     
  14. MadMax

    MadMax Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    74,005
    Likes Received:
    20,789
    I think this article is rejecting the idea that this current downturn is worse than those....because it's not; yet. It's not saying it can't/won't go that way...just that it hasn't yet...but that all the talking heads would tell you it's absolutely the worst since the Great Depression. I personally have heard that comment thrown out quite a bit.
     
  15. weslinder

    weslinder Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    12,983
    Likes Received:
    291
    Fascism (the economic system, not Nazism) is more efficient, and creates more "progress" than communism.
     
  16. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    42,810
    Likes Received:
    3,013
    The problem with comparing this recession and economic downturn to the 70's and 80's is because of deregulation we have an entirely different banking system. it isn't just the subprime mortgages, its the derivatives and swaps attached to them. banks have levereged their assets 30 times to one. the money in the system isn't real.

    the snl crisis cost the us government $124BB. we can only wish the current banking crisis only cost $100BB. It takes $124BB to save four or five banks. when the snl crisis hit, a home loan interest rate was upwards of 15%. iow, the gov't cannot give the economy a boost with interest rates because we are already at almost zero.

    The unemployment rated is calculated differently then it was in the eighties, calculating it the way it was calculated then, unemployment is in the 9-10% range already.
     
  17. rimrocker

    rimrocker Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    22,397
    Likes Received:
    8,340
    We are up the creek without a paddle and swimming against a sewer of several trillion dollars in losses. This is infinitely worse than those recessions because the problem goes to the heart of the system we've allowed to be created over the last 20 years.

    And is folly to suggest that because previous recessions had a certain trajectory that this will follow suit. It may, but it very well might not. I truly think only idiots would advocate with certainty one way or the other.

    I notice the first quote of the article is from the Cato Institute, which pretty much colors the rest of the article for me... I don't know what the political calculation is, but for some reason talk radio and winger think tanks have chosen the incredible task of trying to convince people that things are not bad, that this is a made-up crisis. Meanwhile, the school my kids go to is thinking about giving us an extra week for spring break and going to 4 days a week because they're running out of money. Meanwhile, the unemployment continues to climb and foreclosures continue to rise. And all the while, we still don't have an honest accounting of what the hell is going on with the financial sector.

    I was a kid, but somewhat socially aware in the 1970's and I was really paying attention in the 1980s.. This is not like those. Who are you going to believe? The Cato Institute and Michael Savage or your lying eyes?
     
  18. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,445
    Likes Received:
    15,886
    I think we can pretty definitively answer that, though. We know for certain that Citigroup and Bank of America would not be here today without the TARP. How many other banks is unclear. But at the very least, those two going under would be the largest financial collapse in world history. The FDIC and other costs to the government would be as expensive as the TARP, so the cost would be the same. We also know that all lending has basically ceased in the immediate aftermath of the Lehman Brothers collapse. A few more weeks of that and many perfectly healthy companies unable to get standard commercial paper were going to start defaulting on payroll and other basic expenses.

    If you believe Rep. Kanjorski, then we were one afternoon away from the entire western global financial system going away:

    http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/09/rep-kanjorski-550-bi.html

    But beyond that, this recession is different/worse than the 70's/80's for a number of reasons:

    1. Globalization. The level of interaction between countries now tends to make any individual country more resistant to a downturn somewhere else. But when they do go down, they go down harder than in the past.

    2. The Housing crisis - from my understanding, we have never had year-over-year price declines of the sort that we're having right now since the Great Depression. That's trillions in wealth that is disappearing in a way that hasn't happened before. Combined with the trillions lost in the stock market, while the job picture may not be as gloomy, the wealth picture is much worse than the 70's and 80's. That's not measured by unemployment or GDP statistics but has a real impact on people. Also, my understanding is that unemployment is calculated differently from how it was in the 70's, so the unemployment comparisons are not apples-to-apples.

    3. The financial crisis mentioned above. We've never before been on the brink of total collapse of the global financial system.
     
  19. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,925
    Likes Received:
    2,267
    garbage scare tactic analysis

    mix in some facts every now and then, brah
     
  20. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    43,678
    Likes Received:
    25,619
    This whirlwind is worse than anything seen since the Greatest Generation, and it's not over yet.

    -A recent telegraph editorial pinned European balance sheets at 50 trillion dollars with an average leverage ratio of 50:1.

    http://baselinescenario.com/2009/02/12/europe-is-in-bigger-trouble-than-the-us/

    -While we lost 2 million jobs last quarter, China lost 20 million.

    -Export driven economies like China, Japan, and Germany are feeling it worse. Their consumer base were expected to spend more, but instead are spending even less.

    There's a lot of hope in coordinated worldwide policy response to resolve the credit situation, but all that means right now is for the US to take the lead while the EU twiddles their thumbs on something actionable. The EU's bureaucracy stands more to change from all this than the American system.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now