The 5 Fundamental Problems of the US Economy


For economic commentary and analysis, go to the bonddad blog.

I've been bearish on the economy for the last two years. Every 4-6 months, I revisit my bearishness to see if it is still warranted. It is. Underlying the great and fabulous growth of the "greatest story never told (according the Larry Kudlow) is a mountain of debt at the federal and personal level, stagnating wages a negative national savings rate and a trade deficit that while showing some signs of improvement is still at dangerous levels.

The standard refrain regarding this points is "nothing bad has happened yet. Therefore we shouldn't worry about these things." While it is true that nothing bad has happened, we have to ask ourselves a fundamental question: "Is this the way we want to build and manage the largest economy in the world?"

Debt

When used properly, debt can increase leverage and allow an investor to increase his return. When used poorly, debt is a crutch that hides the basic problems of an economy. Unfortunately, the US is using debt poorly at the federal and household level.

At the federal level we have once again seen an explosion of debt issuance. While the White House is claiming the budget deficit is decreasing, the amount of debt issued for the last 6 years indicates otherwise. According to the Treasury Department, the total debt outstanding on September 30 2001 was $5,807,463,412,200.06. That number was $8,713,570,341,089.42 as of February 12, or an increase of nearly $3 trillion dollars. The amount of interest on that debt is increasing:

2006 $405,872,109,315.83
2005 $352,350,252,507.90
2004 $321,566,323,971.29
2003 $318,148,529,151.51
2002 $332,536,958,599.42
2001 $359,507,635,242.41

Here is a chart from the St. Louis Federal Reserve that shows the year-over-year increase in interest payments.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

As we enter a period when higher interest rates are more likely simply because rates have been at generational lows for the last 4 years, these number will obviously go higher.

At the household level we have also seen an explosion of debt use, especially in the last 5 years. Here's a chart of total household debt outstanding from the St. Louis Federal Reserve:

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Notice the higher arc of the last few years that occurred during this expansion. The next chart shows how the year over year change in household debt is twice as high during this expansion as the previous expansion.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

The following chart shows how total debt service payments are at record highs of disposable income.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

All of this has occurred at a time when wages for most Americans have been stagnant, despite some large productivity increases we have seen (thanks to Tula Connell for the graph).

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

So, the great increase in the standard of living has not come from higher wages, but instead by borrowing today in hopes of repayment tomorrow.

Stagnant Wages

In case you were wondering, the graph above indicates that wages for the average American have been stagnant for the last 6 years as well. Here's another graph from Kash at the Streetlight economic blog

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Here's how he sums up the chart:

In recent months the drop in gas prices has pushed real earnings noticeably higher, but those earnings are still only around 2% above where they were seven years ago.

So after accounting for consumer price inflation, the average production worker takes home about $10 more per week than he or she did in the year 2000. It's no wonder that lots of people feel that economic growth is passing them by...

Savings (or lack therefor).

So, what happens when a person with all of this debt loses his job? Well, there isn't much to fall back on. Here is a chart from the St. Louis Fed that shows the national savings rate:

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

There has been a fair amount of ink devoted to proving the official savings rate is not a good measure. Unfortunately for this argument, three other studies have confirmed the savings crisis is very real. The short version is simple: one financial catastrophe and the average American family is knee-deep in trouble.

The trade deficit

The US is consuming more than it produces. We buy far more goods than we sell, as evidenced by the mammoth US trade deficit:

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

The trade deficit is a primary reason why foreign investors have almost doubled their investments in US debt securities over the last 5 years.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Like the savings situation, some have tried to argue the deficit isn't a problem because either nothing bad has happened yet or this calculation is wrong or a combination of both. The problem with this argument is the forex market clearly disagrees, as they have sent the dollar on a four-year long downward trajectory.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Conclusion

So where does this leave the economy? Massively in debt and vulnerable to random events. Now we can bury our heads in the sand or try to claim that "something is fundamentally different with this current situation" that makes standard economic analysis fruitless, or we can start to change the way we conduct business.

But then again, nothing bad has happened yet, so why worry?


Bonddad February 13, 2007 - 7:58am

We don't manufacture much of anything, and from there flow most of our economic problems. No Manufacturing leads to no unions and no bargaining power hence stagnant wages, no savings and debt, not to mention the trade deficit.

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. John Stuart Mill

Don Quijote February 13, 2007 - 8:33am

I'm not sure, but I think the labels of conservative & liberal meant the opposite of what they do today.

RARitthaler February 14, 2007 - 9:58pm

In slow moving agrarian times when the terms first originated, the status quo meant a static backdrop. "Progressives" wanted change. "Conservatives" wanted to preserve the existing order. The grid of society itself was essentially static and a conservative wanted things to stay like they were in Grandad's day - which, without massive injection of energy from progressives, they largely tended to do.

Cut to the 20th century. In the lifespans of those still living we have gone from no powered flight to a permanent manned space station, from the telegraph to the Internet.

On the social front, at the turn of the 20th century - women could not vote and a large number of free African Americans living at the time had been born as slaves. The military did not desegregate until 1947 and the Civil Rights movement didn't begin until nearly a generation later.

There is no living human being in the West who remembers what a static social grid looks like; the entire grid moves forward today. All calculations of absolute political alignment today must account for both orientation towards the grid and the fact that the grid itself has beeen in constant forward motion all our lives.

Seemingly, a conservative wants to resist change and a progressive wants change. But the roles have flipped because conservatives pick a historical reference point off the grid - a favorite seems to be the mythical 1950s - and walk against the moving grid; their alignment to history stays constant but their alignment to the grid goes backwards, much like a person would walk backwards trying to stay stationary on a moving sidewalk in an airport.

Progressives move forward with the grid, meaning that their alignment to the grid stays constant but their alignment to history does not.

A rough analogy, but that to me accounts for the flipping of the roles of progressives and conservatives.

A progressive assumes that every decade another group of people will be asked to be treated as equals - as full citizens - and we will naturally grant that request. It's all we've ever known for our entire lives - the request and the granting. Last time it was women in the workplace, or African Americans, this time it's gay people, next time - who knows? Who cares? We're all supposed to be equals in the eyes of the law anyway, so it's only putting our money where our mouths are.

A conservative today is now someone who wants to progress (of course this is "progress" from their perspective because it represents not movement in relation to history but movement in relation to the moving grid itself; it's 'regression' in an absolute sense) in relation to that grid; a progressive is someone who wants to conserve their position in reference to that forward-progressing grid - meaning forward motion in an absolute sense.

Escher Sketch February 15, 2007 - 1:57pm

I think people should ignore the "conservative," "liberal," and "progressive" labels since they are loaded, vague terms that are used to cover many things. Instead people should use one basic standard: does it advance or oppose individual (the only kind there is) liberty.

RARitthaler February 16, 2007 - 11:52am

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. trade deficit set a fifth consecutive annual record in 2006, reflecting a huge jump in America's foreign oil bill and an all-time high for the trade gap with China. The year ended with the December deficit increasing more than had been expected.

The Commerce Department reported Tuesday that the gap between what America sells abroad and what it imports rose to a record $763.6 billion last year, a 6.5 percent increase from the previous record of $716.7 billion set in 2005. For December, the deficit rose a bigger-than-expected 5.3 percent to $61.2 billion.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070213/economy.html?.v=6

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

mauberly February 13, 2007 - 9:13am

Christian conservatives have their own idea about the redistrubution of wealth, and its noteven close to the ol' socialist or communist ideal.
"The dubious link between Christian literalism and Christian values is belied by other indices of social equality. Consider the ratio of salaries paid to top-tier CEOs and those paid to the same firms' average employees: in Britain it is 24:1; in France, 15:1; in Sweden, 13:1; in the United States, where 80 percent of the population expects to be called before God on Judgment Day, it is 475:1. Many a camel, it would seem, expects to pass easily through the eye of a needle." Sam Harris 'Letter To A Christian Nation'

rMatey February 13, 2007 - 6:42pm

casting your bread upon the water.

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

mauberly February 13, 2007 - 7:47pm

and then there is corporatism. Increasingly we have the latter here in the US.

Some might call that a form of socialism.

I did inhale.

Don February 15, 2007 - 12:11pm

The big corporations seem to exhibit the same qualities as socialist countries that were roundly criticized by the US; they cannot stay competitive, they cannot innovate on their own, etc. The corporations are themselves essentially planned centralized economies akin to the Soviet Union and they own most of the political power in the US.

Now we have the wonderful selection of goods available at WalMart; tools that might last through one use, if your lucky, sporting goods that cannot be used competitively, clothes that you wear once and throw away and on and on. Yet the American "free" market system chooses WalMart to survive and run the little hardware store or boutique down the street, that supply things of quality, out of business. Corporatism and free markets do not coexist.

This is socialism!

Joaquin February 15, 2007 - 4:56pm

I think that corporations are a creation of government for people to avoid personal accountability. I think it's better to classify our system as fascistic (meaning ownership in name but control by governments) rather than free-market. Look at all the occupations that have to be "licensed." Who could "license" the licensers? Nobody.

RARitthaler February 16, 2007 - 11:59am

This is a rich source of information for which I am really grateful. There are at least two separate themes that these graphs support. One is that Bush has grotesquely mismanaged the federal budget. The second is that the "me generation" Americans are still behaving as if there is no tomorrow. And sadly for their children and grandchildren their attitude might prove self-fulfilling.

Theme I Dubya and the Bridge to Nowhere Republicans

The last chart, trade weighted currencies shows that the currency has slipped in value. On one hand, it should promise beneficial effects. It would, if America's manufacturing base had not been shipped overseas by the free traders. But it is a sign of a weak and worsening economic future for the society.

The previous chart shows how the Dubya administration has doubled American federal government indebtedness to other nations. It took five years for him to do essentially the same damage that it took Reagan and his father 12 years to do. Is this nominal dollars or deflated ones?

The first chart explains how he managed this feat. It is the Republican "Bridge to Nowhere" culture. Democrats waste money on things like education, food, housing, and improvements to infrastructure. Republicans, however, find it more convenient to take on projects that have no redeeming value. In this way they can be as arbitrary as hell in selecting contactors. Halliburton for services in Iraq, for instance. Paid for with wads of fresh printed money. See also, Bridge to Nowhere.

Unfortunately, the graphs fail to illustrate this particular aspect of the problem.

Theme II Spendthrift American

There is a case to be made that Americans are spending money they do not have, but I am unconvinced that these graphs fully succeed in making it. Many of the graphs have subtle prolems. Liabilities-Household credit is one. It is in nominal dollars? It is a 5 decade exponential graph and not on log scale? This hardly scratches the surface of the issues..

Household obligations as a percent of earnings is informative. Interestingly, it establishes only a gradual drift upward. In fact, one would wonder whether that drift is not completely explained by changes in interest rates. In other words, if one calculated what Americans budget to pay down their current level of indebtedness, I wonder whether the trend would still be upward? My guess is that it would. But it would be a weaker trend.

The negative savings rate is of real concern. But one wonders whether this includes all retirement savings such as social security and private pensions. Still, a negative savings rate is really irresponsible; it invites disaster. Ask Dicken's sad character McCawber.

What is not captured here is that most Americans depend on their homes as their primary asset. And by all measures, homes in America, as they are in Britain and Australia right now, are overvalued. In terms of other factors, they ought to be valued at about half of what they are now. When the market correction hits, it will wipe out many, perhaps most Americans.

Conclusion

I think one could be sanguine about either one of these kinds of series of data, perhaps. But taken together they prove a complete lack of fiscal discipline for a whole society. Societies that live this way end up second-rate nations. And the fall generally produces such social tensions that political repression is not far behind. (See Argentina.) Those squiggly lines paint a rather scary picture of the future. America approaches a learning point, I fear.

mtspace February 14, 2007 - 9:50pm

I am not in favor of Bush (for many reasons), but he is not in charge of the budget: Congress makes the apportionments. Blame ALL of them, or at least the majority who voted for it.

RARitthaler February 14, 2007 - 10:04pm

I simply do not understand how the author can agree with the statement, "nothing bad has happened yet."

What about the hundreds of thousands, no, how about the millions of people who have been thrown out of their careers? Is that supposed to be a good thing because it opened up the economy for jobs for younger people? Maybe so. But then those younger higher wage workers had better hold to the promise that the Boomer Generation bought into and PAID FOR. Social Security.

We supported the aged and poor people of our grandparents generation and our parents and we paid for the education of this generation. All we needed was ten years to re fill our bank accounts for retirement and it would all have been okay.

But instead this government in cahoots with the Corporations that own it, and without the realization of the younger generation, has broken that promise to the Baby Boomers, making sure we all loose our jobs at 55 years old, fully 10 years before we can qualify the high wage Social Security Benefits we have been paying TOP DOLLAR FOR TEN YEARS TO HAVE. We instead will be competing with people just coming off welfare.

All the while listening to 30 and 40 somethings whine about supporting our generation. You had it all on a platter and you gave it to these people.. the corporatists. The anti union Constitution-busting corporatists. After all, how can you reap financial havoc on the globe if there is a government standing in your way to adjudicate it?

By destroying America they will stand alone, the sole owners of this nation. The winners.

This bad thing has already happened and it is really BAD.

So don't tell me that "nothing bad has happened" to our economy yet. It is about to crash and WE THE BOOMERS are the ONLY ones who learned from the Depression Era people who taught us how to live.

And we are ready. We are tough and smart. And we are prepared.

The writer is correct about one big thing (and probably a lot more):
That is that a Depression is coming. Soon.

Yellowbird February 16, 2007 - 1:49am

February 18, 2007
Debtors Search for Discipline via Blogs
By JOHN LELAND
NYT

When a woman who calls herself Tricia discovered last week that she owed $22,302 on her credit cards, she could not wait to spread the news. Tricia, 29, does not talk to her family or friends about her finances, and says she is ashamed of her personal debt.

Yet from the laundry room of her home in northern Michigan, Tricia does something that would have been unthinkable — and impossible — a generation ago: she goes online and posts intimate details of her financial life, including her net worth (now negative $38,691), the balance and finance charges on her credit cards, and the amount of debt she has paid down since starting a blog about her debt last year ($15,312).

Her journal, bloggingawaydebt.com, is one of dozens that have sprung up in recent years taking advantage of Internet anonymity to reveal to strangers fiscal intimacies the authors might not tell their closest friends.

Like other debt bloggers, Tricia believes the exposure gives her the discipline to reduce her debt. “I think about this blog every time I’m in the store and something that I don’t need catches my eye,” she told readers last week. “Look what you all have done to me!”

A decade after the Internet became a public stage for revelations from the bedroom, it is now peering into the really private stuff: personal finance.

The blogs open a homey and sometimes shockingly candid window on the day-to-day finances of American households in a time of rising debt, failing mortgages and financial uncertainty. In 2006, the average American household carried about $7,200 in revolving debt (mostly on credit cards) and $21,000 in total debt.

A blog called “Poorer Than You” (kgazette.blogspot.com) describes the financial doings of a 20-year-old film-school dropout. (Typical post: “Yesterday we ate lunch at Subway for a total of $8.00, and went grocery shopping ... with a list! And didn’t buy anything that wasn’t on it!”) On saveleighann.blogspot.com, Leigh Ann Fraley, 37, provides daily accounts of her escape from $19,947 in credit card debt.

“I teach people how to get out of debt for a living, but I couldn’t do it myself until I started the blog,” said Ms. Fraley, who conducts seminars in personal finance for a bank in Northern California. “I started to write everything down, like, ‘I saved 20 cents today by parking at a meter that still had time on it.’ I tell things I wouldn’t tell my family.” When she got out of debt in December, she said, “The blog was the first people I told.”

A Boston couple who call themselves the King and Queen of Debt started their his-and-hers blog, “We’re in Debt” (wereindebt.com), last March as a way to talk to each other about their debt. They owed $34,155.70 on their credit cards at the time, and an additional $120,000, mostly in student loans.

“My wife and I have good communication skills in every avenue of life except finances,” said the King of Debt, insisting on anonymity because, he said, “We don’t want our parents to find out and kill us.”

Starting the blog, he said, “was a way to communicate.”

Tricia started her blog after reading the online account of another woman, thedebtdefier.blogspot.com, who said she had paid off her credit card debt of $19,794.23 in a little more than a year.

Like other bloggers interviewed for this article, Tricia said she and her husband had arrived at their debt gradually, not by big financial crises but by regularly spending more money than they made, using credit that was offered freely by credit card companies.

more

Tina February 18, 2007 - 10:36am

Most every problem I see with our economy comes from the fact that we long ago gave away our most important power to print money (Federal Reserve Act). That's right, the federal reserve isn't federal at all. It is a privately owned bank...Don't beleive me?...well then believe the man who signed the bill himself.

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

President Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924), three years after signing the Federal Reserve Act into law and realising he had given international bankers the mortgage of America (1916)

Until we can motivate our congress to take back this most important power, absolutely nothing of any signifigance is going to change...at least for the good.

Israel February 19, 2007 - 5:43pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.