Hillarysworld

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info
TOPIC: "Time to rebalance" (Economist, 3/31/10)


Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 4567
Date:
"Time to rebalance" (Economist, 3/31/10)
Permalink  
 


This is an important article. Please read. Let's discuss implications, preferably more specifically as it applies to us as what we might observe in the coming months. Thanks.

the-economist-logo.gif

"

A special report on America's economy

Time to rebalance

America’s economy is set to shift away from consumption and debt and towards exports and saving. It will be its biggest transformation in decades, says Greg Ip (interviewed here)

Mar 31st 2010 | From The Economist print edition

STEVE HILTON remembers months of despair after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008. Customers rushed to the sales offices of Meritage Homes, the property firm Mr Hilton runs, not to buy houses but to cancel contracts they had already signed. “I thought for a moment the world was coming to an end,” he recalls.

In the following months Mr Hilton stepped up efforts to save his company. He gave up options to buy thousands of lots that the firm had snapped up across Arizona, Florida, Nevada and California during the boom, taking massive losses. He eventually laid off three-quarters of its 2,300 employees. He also had its houses completely redesigned to cut construction cost almost in half: simpler roofs, standardised window sizes, fewer options. Gone were the 12-foot ceilings, sweeping staircases and granite countertops everyone wanted when money was free. Meritage is now catering to the only customers able to get credit: first-time buyers with federally guaranteed loans. It is clawing its way back to health as a leaner, humbler company.

The same could be said for America. Virtually every industry has shed jobs in the past two years, but those that cater mostly to consumers have suffered most. Employment in residential construction and carmaking is down by almost a third, in retailing and banking by 8%. As the economy recovers, some of those jobs will come back, but many of them will not, because this was no ordinary recession. The bubbly asset prices, ever easier credit and cheap oil that fuelled America’s age of consumerism are not about to return.

Instead, America’s economy will undergo one of its biggest transformations in decades. This macroeconomic shift from debt and consumption to saving and exports will bring microeconomic changes too: different lifestyles, and different jobs in different places. This special report will describe that transformation, and explain why it will be tricky. (Emphasis added)

[SNIP]

 

The road to salvation

As consumers rebuild their savings, American firms must increasingly look abroad for sales. They have a lot of ground to make up. Competition from low-wage countries, mostly China, has increasingly taken over the markets of domestic industries such as furniture, clothing or consumer electronics. Yet shifts in the pattern of global growth and the dollar are laying the groundwork for a boom in exports. “There’s a world view that the United States is the consumer of the world and emerging markets are the producer,” says Bruce Kasman, chief economist at JPMorgan Chase. “That has changed.” He reckons that America will account for just 27% of global consumption this year against emerging markets’ 34%, roughly the reverse of their shares eight years ago.

The cheaper dollar will resuscitate some industries in commoditised markets, but the main beneficiaries of the export boom will be companies that are already formidable exporters. These companies reflect America’s strengths in high-end services and highly skilled manufacturing such as medical devices, pharmaceuticals, software and engineering, as well as creative services like film, architecture and advertising. Thanks to cheap digital technology, South Korea and India now knock out the sort of low-budget films that compete with standard American fare. But only Hollywood combines the creativity, expertise and market savvy to make something like “Avatar” which has earned $2.6 billion so far, some 70% of which came from abroad. That adds up to several jumbo jets.

Exports are a classic route to recovery after a crisis. Sweden and Finland in the early 1990s and Thailand, Malaysia and South Korea in the late 1990s bounced back from recession by moving from trade deficit to surplus or expanding their surplus. But given its size and the sickly state of most other rich countries’ economies, America will find it much harder. It has been exporting more to emerging markets than to developed ones for several years, but if other countries, particularly China, do not sufficiently boost domestic demand, “the unwinding of the global imbalances could reverse quite quickly in 2010,” says an IMF staff paper.

America’s current-account deficit, the broadest measure of its trade and payments with the rest of the world, shrank from 6% of GDP in 2006 to 3% last year (see chart 2). Could it come down to zero? It nearly did in 1991 after five years of booming exports. This time the deficit started out a lot larger and the rest of the world is weaker. Still, even stabilisation around 3% would be a blessed relief because it would slow the growth in America’s indebtedness to foreigners.

"

More @ Economist.com



__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010
Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010

Madam Secretary Blog at ForeignPolicy.com
Project Vote Smart - Stay informed and engaged!


Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1695
Date:
Permalink  
 

I'm no expert on the fine points of economics, but I do know that for some time this country has been trending away from a manufacturing economy to a service oriented economy. This as been significantly detrimental to this country and to our economy. It's good to hear this may be turning around.

__________________
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.... Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less.  ~Susan B. Anthony



Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 4567
Date:
Permalink  
 


I think what we US did wrong is remove protections on importation in the hopes that other countries reciprocate. In the meanwhile, we have total unrestrained market via the Internet.

Exporting the manufacturing jobs happened because of the implied subsidies.  Income on operations in other countries is not taxed in the U.S. until there is actual money transfer and even then, it is not taxes as profit. This implicitly gives a huge impetus for operations to staff their positions from other 'low wage' countries.

As other countries have gained better competencies and more presence as service providers, and their economies and infrastructure improved enough to enable successful 24 x 7 operations from there, if they have good communication skills, (again thanks to the Internet that has eased communication,) they have now become extensions of U.S. operations.  This has suddenly made their labor highly desirable and ours far less so in many service industries.

The combination of the above two is what we are seeing in the softening of our labor market.

[Meanwhile, a good equalizer would be if we did not have such high minimum wage --- notice no one is asking to raise minimum wage anymore -- but the fact of the matter is the minimum wage is insufficient to sustain a basic level of living.   This is yet another topic worth its own focus. There is a book in the Decade's highlights that focuses on this subject; I intend to read it. If you do, we can discuss here.]

What the article above tells us is something profound.  It is telling us the realities of an aging economy that has not built many barriers to entry by competition/imports.

Yes, we will have to grow manufacturing jobs. One way to do that is to provide subsidies for hiring (and retaining) domestically. This is something that Pres.Bill Clinton did in the mid 1990's.  But this time, the pressures are even steeper.  Until there is some wage leveling at least to sufficient to degree that exporting jobs becomes unattractive because of the added cost of overseeing remote operations, we will probably not have big job growth in manufacturing sector.

We have been a consumption focused economy. i.e., our money moved fast mostly because of consumption. This is the hallmark of an affluent economy - an economy where there is BOTH job growth and income growth -- so ALMOST ALL people are experiencing the 'riches' of growth. Going forward, however, the economy is not so rosy - job growth is not expected but GDP may still grow thanks to exports - i.e., market is outside the country if they continue to consume.  i.e., We will still have topline growth and bottomline growth for our richer people, but do not expect more jobs.  This has PROFOUND implications for policies --- as we are already seeing.  The likelihood of job loss continues to remain high given the wage imbalance.  So, the middle class *****MUST**** focus on saving, and do so rather quickly.  On existing operations and higher income people, their revenues will grow and will probably feel greater pressures (taxes) to sustain the economic pressures of the jobless.

-- Edited by Sanders on Monday 5th of April 2010 02:07:28 PM

__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010
Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010

Madam Secretary Blog at ForeignPolicy.com
Project Vote Smart - Stay informed and engaged!
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard