The Myths of Economic “Recovery”
President Obama and congressional leaders met today to discuss the “mammoth” $825 billion economic stimulus package. According to early reports, the necessary legislation is “on track” to pass by February 16 — Presidents Day. Although this is Obama’s first meeting with congressional leaders in his young presidency, much is on the line, perhaps even the new president’s place in history.
Imagine that Obama leads the nation out of the current depression/ recession (take your pick, though I believe we have already entered the former). If he achieves that monumental task he will be hailed as one of the nation’s greatest chief executives, right up there with Washington, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, and Jefferson. Instantly.
The challenge Obama and the rest of the Washington, DC political infrastructure faces, however, is that fixing the economic mess is still going to be incredibly painful for otherwise hard working, honest, and upstanding people. Millions (perhaps tens of millions?) of citizens are going to be thrown under the bus at the expense of the larger whole.
Quite simply, many of the attempts at “fixing” the economy are bound to backfire, particulary when they add additional burdens to lower and middle class citizens. The nation has already witnessed this over the last several months when the Bush administration distributed the first $350 billion in relief to foundering financial institutions. The unfulfilled assumption was that the money would trickle down through the system, ultimately finding its way to those who needed help saving their homes or buying things. It did not work.
Let us hope that the new administration will develop novel ways to actually stimulate the economy, not prop up bloated corporations. In the meantime, business and governmental leaders will rely on the same old-hat means that rarely work, or simply outsource the economic burden to those most at risk during economic challenges.
A few examples:
Increased Fines and Fees — Florida’s state representatives met in a special session to cut Florida’s budget to make up for a $2.4 billion gap. One of its less creative measures included raising traffic fines and fees. While the added revenue from such fines may help, it is hard to imagine that this indirect tax against residents and tourists will do much more than increase general animosity. These programs have the greatest consequence for those individuals least able to pay increased fees and fines.
Downsizing — Companies are searching for quick fixes. Historically, laying off workers provides a bump up in stock price and a round of applause on Wall Street. The numbers are so large that they get dizzying, for example, Microsoft downsizing 5,000 and Intel laying off 5-6,000 in recent announcements. Again, corporate executives relying on band-aids to stop arterial bleeding.
There is no way enact massive employee cuts without leaving behind a scared, overworked staff biding its time until the next round of layoffs, let alone cope with the psychological and financial terror that those 11,000 Microsoft/Intel employees face. That is 11,000 additional people who can’t buy the consumer goods that the government hopes will spark the economy, can’t make mortgage payments, and add to the unemployment rolls.
Foreclosure – These most dastardly stimulus “myth” is that the bailout package is going to actually help those in trouble save their homes. It is another vicious cycle scenario — rather than refinance in a manner that allows a person to stay in their house, banks foreclose, and then re-sell the place at a loss. One senses, though, that the rising anger about foreclosures is reaching a point at which people are ready to fight back. Read Ben Ehrenreich’s piece in The Nation for examples of people pushing against the traditional foreclosure system.
The writing on the wall seems pretty clear — traditional methods no longer work. The entire system must be re-calibrated. New rules are necessary. We need to turn our innovation inward to find unique means of creating a new form of capitalism.
For example, imagine the goodwill a team of corporate executives would generate if instead of laying off thousands of employees, they announced a plan to restructure their salaries and pooled the money to keep workers employed. A chief executive earning millions of dollars in salary, benefits, and stock options, in this case, would determine the salary he needed to live comfortably, then turn the rest into the employee pool. For some CEOs, they could forego salaries for years, given the countless millions earned in preceding years.
The bottom line is that $825 billion or $825 trillion will not matter for most people. The discussion is moot when 99 percent of the people one knows live a paycheck-to-paycheck existence. Sending $30 billion to save a failing bank or $600 or $1,500 to each person in the country, encouraging them to go out and buy things, is not going to save the economy. Imagine, one paycheck from economic ruin.
January 23rd, 2009 at 18:04
Hi Bob,
Insightful post that has been on nearly everyone’s mind lately, especially here in D.C. It’s interesting that you bring up the high level CEOs taking pay cuts - I know Jet Blue’s CEO (and others) did this last year, and I wonder what the effect was on the company’s bottom line. It certainly boosted employee morale, and in a time like this, I think that’s almost as important as a fiscal improvement. Clearly a step in the right direction, but will more companies follow this example in 2009? They might have to.
What will be fascinating to watch is how the new presidential administration resolves this issue. I have no idea what tactics they will come up with to “stimulate” the economy, but I hope new ones that might actually work are presented on the floor. If a $1,500 personal check or a $350 billion bailout doesn’t work, what will?
January 28th, 2009 at 17:39
Bob,
Your criticism of how the $350 billion of the way President Bush’s $700 billion bailout plan was used is certainly warranted. That criticism should have been directed towards the Treasury Department and the Fed.
The infamous three-page document which became the first bailout is called the Troubled-Assets Relief Program. It was sold in Congress (with significant amounts of pork) as a way to simultaneously stabilize the US banking system and end the forclosure crisis.
Under the plan, the Treasury Department was to buy all of bank’s illiquid assets. This would have effectively cleared their books of the defaulting securitized debt and made the US government the debtor for all of the scandalous loans sold over the last 10-20 years. It sounded pretty solid at the time
Well, credit around the world locked up. Odd and scary things began happening. Iceland’s (!) banking system went belly up. Paulson and Bernanke, with a brand new shiny $350 billion, decided banks needed to be saved, not American homeowners. So that is how we ended up where we are. As we saw on inauguration day, the market tanked on more credit fears. The $350 billion was, as you so eloquently put it, “a band-aid to [try] and stop arterial bleeding.”
Job layoffs across service industries are unavoidable. Just as Wall Street leveraged money at 40:1, perceived need for financial advisers, analysts, media relations folks, accountants and so forth, was artificially inflated.
Something needs to be done to put these service-industry folks back to work but something also needs to be done to prop up consumer demand so companies like Microsoft and Linens ‘n Things can stay in business. Call it trickle middle but the US economy has to realign itself with reality in order to find a way out of this mess. Reality Bites.
February 9th, 2010 at 05:33
budur ya super.
February 9th, 2010 at 05:33
ne yazsak boş. 1 Numarasın
February 9th, 2010 at 05:34
istanbul sohbet odaları
February 9th, 2010 at 05:35
mynet sohbet odaları askainat