Idle labor, idle capital, perverse austerity

The great recession of 2008-09 has left us persistent high unemployment, record low interest rate, large corporate and bank reserves. Consumers are struggling to repair their balance sheets, yet neither governments nor large corporations are doing much to help solve the economic slump.

What's going on? Can "market" solve the problem on its own? And what do we mean by that, anyway?

The only sensible diagnosis I've seen so far by economists is that the "advanced world, accounting for 70 percent of world GDP at market prices, is in a liquidity trap."

What should be done?

In the words of Nobel Laureate Peter Diamond:

On the nation’s unemployment problem and how infrastructure spending could help solve it:

–Most of [the 9.1% unemployment rate], more than half of it, is inadequate aggregate demand and what we need now, very badly, is more fiscal stimulus and the continuation by the Fed of rolling out monetary stimulus as it fits their projections of what’s going on.

–Right now we have idle labor, idle capital… [and] interest rates are low, so doing it sooner has that advantage compared to doing it later. And third we do get a Keynesian multiplier out of it. –The fact that infrastructure spending will be phased in slowly doesn’t seem to me a shortcoming right now, because all the forecasts we’ve seen say coming out of this [malaise] is going to be a slow process.

Are we headed for another recession?

–There’s no question that we’re vulnerable….. It’s really important to put into place policies that would have the long-run effect of reducing debt growth. But there’s nothing on the debt side we need to do immediately. We do not have a debt crisis. We have a long-run debt problem and austerity today is perverse from the point of view of unemployment, and insofar as the economy is vulnerable that will make it more vulnerable, and of course a double-dip [recession] will lose us a lot of tax revenue.

Professor Diamond is known for his "search" model of labor market, which brings in a form of market friction to explain the lack of clearance in labor market. Even he thinks the unemployment problem is mostly an aggregate demand problem. The rest could perhaps be attributed to "structural" problems such as skill mismatch.

The interview with WSJ's Kelly Evans shows these takes and views:

Doing a lot more with a lot less

The U.S. corporations have recovered remarkably well. Revenues and earnings are growing in a slow-growth economy. As Jack Welch puts it: The American corporations have learned to do a lot more with a lot less.



Large corporations have a lot going for them: extremely competitive labor market and technologies allowing them to cut costs. On top of that, cost of capital has been driven to historical low as the Fed fights the great recession. They're also able to tap into the fast-growing emerging market economies for demands on their goods and services. The Fed is lending a helping hand here too by maintaining the easy money policy which tends to drive down the dollar.

A natural question to ask the government is why can't it do a lot more with a lot less? The Republicans are clearly on the affirmative. But can austerity really help small businesses and help create jobs? You just can't run a government as if it's a corporation.

Can labor or consumers manage to do a lot more with a lot less? Somehow you just can't push that logic very far with tens of millions of unemployed and under-employed.

Obama's job bill may be too little too late, if it gets passed in some form at all. The Fed's latest "operation twist" (a double twists) may be too little as well. A twisted QE may have more sense given the grim outlook. More firepower should be concentrated on the mortgage market. At least the Fed is trying.

Luxury resilience and operation twist

The mainstream de-leveraging consumers continue to struggle in face of persistent high unemployment and housing market slump. The great recession hit both their income and their wealth hard. Low-end retailers such as JC Penny and Walmart are not doing well.

The mainstream consumer is powerless in driving the recovery.

Consumer spending is now overwhelmingly the story of the luxury shoppers. While a small segment of consumers, they wield an outside impact on the broader economy, earning roughly 50% of the total income in the U.S. and making about 48% of total expenditures.

The newly rich in emerging economies are also making their spending power felt around the globe from luxury accessories to luxury cars and homes. Here are some interesting recent reports:

Hermès cannot meet demand for luxury.

LVMH Sees No Slowdown in Luxury Goods Demand.

Urban luxury homes are back in demand, aided by new foreign buyers from Russia, China and Brazil.

Luxury spending picks up even as economy sputters (The Detroit News).

Even the recent market volatility hasn't affected their mood to spend.

The stock market recovery since 2009 has a lot to do with it. The Fed's easy money policy has a lot to do with it.

If the Fed wants to stimulate the economy, the wealth channel is both obvious and effective. This segment of the consumers are credit-worthy, cash-rich and asset-rich. They're the most likely candidate to lever up somewhat. If the banks want to lend, who else would they want to lend to?

Businesses catering to their needs are expanding, both domestically and internationally (see the recent earnings reports from Tiffany, Raulph Lauren, Nordstrom for example).

The recovery on the highend will trickle down. The Fed must pay a lot of attention to this most promising pillar of economic recovery where monetary policy has been and will continue to be effective.

If the Fed twists this Wednesday, risk-premium would be lowered. Investors would be chased out of safe-haven to take on more risks. Risk assets would be supported to some extent to counter the fear of Euro/Banking crisis and the fear of recession. This is not to create another asset bubble, but to ensure the recovery is in-tact.

More work to do for the Fed chief

Europe is clearly the big drag and big risk for the global economy and the market. U.S. may be the hope. President Obama's job speech last night looked like a refreshing refocus on the real thing, but he faces a difficult uphill battle to get the package through Congress.

The Fed may be able to do a bit more. Mr.Bernanke has been avoiding specifics in his last two big speeches, but provided a clear sounding board to the White House and to the Congress. The economic recovery is at risk of stalling, and the circus in Congress is making things worse.

Yet, it's troubling that Mr.Bernanke appeared troubled by "exceptionally cautious" households:

One striking aspect of the recovery is the unusual weakness in household spending. After contracting very sharply during the recession, consumer spending expanded moderately through 2010, only to decelerate in the first half of 2011. The temporary factors I mentioned earlier--the rise in commodity prices, which has hurt households' purchasing power, and the disruption in manufacturing following the Japanese disaster, which reduced auto availability and hence sales--are partial explanations for this deceleration. But households are struggling with other important headwinds as well, including the persistently high level of unemployment, slow gains in wages for those who remain employed, falling house prices, and debt burdens that remain high for many, notwithstanding that households, in the aggregate, have been saving more and borrowing less. Even taking into account the many financial pressures they face, households seem exceptionally cautious. Indeed, readings on consumer confidence have fallen substantially in recent months as people have become more pessimistic about both economic conditions and their own financial prospects.

Spending power of a typical household comes from their current income and/or their asset. If their asset is not liquid, they can borrow against it. Both sources are under heavy headwinds, as noted by the Fed chief. How much more can they do?

If Mr.Bernanke cannot get over this, and continues to hold out hope that the households will step up spending miraculously, then we're unlikely to see decisive actions from the Fed. Perhaps this is what's troubling the market.

The Fed's dual mandate

New speech from Chicago Fed President Charles Evans makes it clear why the Fed should be more aggressive in tackling the unemployment problem.

The entire article is well worth a good read. Relative to the concerns and comments from the disenting regional Fed presidents, his arguments are based both on macroeconomic theory and empirical studies.

What seems to be lacking, however, is more convincing arguments on the efficacy of un-conventional monetary policies such as QE. On this front, the article is drawing on works by Michael Woodford and perhaps Paul Krugman to argue for setting consistent policy expectations over the medium and the long run.

Ideally, the accommodative monetary policy is most effective when combined with an expansionary fiscal policy which can create final demand directly.