Krugman: The Third Depression

Quote from EMRGLOBAL:

Once again, I will chime in.

I deal with the very wealthy in this country, most are private manufacture owners with net worths between 5million to 100 million plus.

I hear positive things as orders are ticking up, margins are good for them right now and profits are being made across the board.

However, I hear Zero plans on hiring new workers and possible layoff plans if the Tax rates increase, state, fed, insurance, etc.

Thus, once again, those who are weathering this storm are making money. We have had zero problem raising capital for our Private Placements which are in OIL. So far this year we have raised around 6 million. Those with money are being smart and taking calculate risk.

However, the middle class will suffer. Those who work for Typical Corporations and or business who are in debt, are at the mercy of their Axe.

Yet, Depressionary pressures are very small, oil is still above 70, Gold is still high and the dollar has rebound..not to mention China as its own currency floating, no longer tied to the GreenBack showing that China believes she is strong, and those who trade with her will reap the benifits.

The printing machine is gona crank up...and more and more money will flood the system.....never reaching the very people who voted for Obama and his Socialistic Ideas.

Bottom line, there is plenty of money being made, it is being made in key regions...like down in the South on commerical property, Oil and Gas, and corporations relocating for lower wages. As well as companies who are making more money, with less workers than ever before. This mentality will stick and few "bloated" payrolls will exist.

East and West coast are in the Depression now, many of the states will be bankrupt and many social programs will be cut. Very little Muni bond actual will bring about investment money, thus, leaving most of those two regions in the depression for years to come.

The growth is down in the souther'n belt. There is some sign of strength and as more and more money, people, jobs flow in to AL, TN, TX, OK, you will see more strength in those regions.

The set back in LA is gona hurt the state but more and more international shipping and commeric is leaving from the Gulf Ports, from AL to TX.


Those who live in states controlled by liberal dems are gona feel the pain, in a very harsh manner.

US equities market will be drained of key capital before the Capital Gains hike in 2011. I suspect a move towards 6000 if not 5000 from money flowing out of the US STOCK market into Hard Assets.

Once again, ALL S is not P......meaning there are ways to make serious money and build wealth right now. Most people will not...but many will come out of this stronger, wealther and happier.

If I were someone dealing with you, I'd have you drummed out, first of all. Even if English isn't your first language, which it quite evidently isn't, simply running your post through a spell checker first would have at least made it comprehensible enough not to have to read it like you were reading some manual for something made in Taiwan written in Taiwanese English.
This is laziness on your part, pure and simple. No one's asking you to be perfect, but you should at least be comprehensible.
That's number one.
Number two, it also shows the usual economic illiteracy, thinking that second-rate areas that get the transplants from the first-rate are ever going to amount to anything other than second-rate areas that get the transplants.
New companies, born of new ideas, have been made in the North and on the West Coast since forever, with a few notable exceptions. That will continue, for the simple reason that in order to have a first-rate economy, you have to be willing to spend on infrastructure and education.
In bad times, the second-rate benefit, because everyone is looking to save a buck.
In good times, everyone flocks to Silicon Valley, Boston, Wall Street, and so on, because in good times, when original things (Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc.) happen, they happen in the first-rate places, not in the backwaters.
If you think differently, it's because either this is the first cycle you've ever seen, and therefore have the wisdom of the young, or because unlike Yogi Berra, you see nothing when you look.
Yes, the first-rate areas will suffer more than the second-rate. That's because they're where the big risks get taken, and for big risks to get taken, money has to be spent.
Sometimes, you suffer. It's part of the economic game.
That the second-rate suffer less in bad times just proves that they are, in fact, second-rate.
 
Quote from BVM88:

Because the money that was borrowed at ridiculously low rates in Japan and invested in the US, Australia, etc, is heading back home.

The Yen that was out is just credit, not the printed money. If the short Yen transactions (credit) are closed, then the Yen will rise, and no Yens are sent back. The rise in Yen would lower prices in Japan. The Yen is not like the dollar which is used in reserves outside the US. In addition, the lenders to the Japan government are the Japanese. So it is an internal circulation of money. Does this argument make sense?
 
Quote from zboy2854A:

Because that's what happens in a deflationary environment, the currency appreciates. Until the deflation has run its course, at which point the economy flips into massive inflation and the currency plummets. Japan isn't there yet, but they're getting close...

I understand what you wrote except this part:

"at which point the economy flips into massive inflation"

why is it a sure thing? Is it "it may flip or "it will flip"?
 
Quote from tradingjournals:

I understand what you wrote except this part:

"at which point the economy flips into massive inflation"

why is it a sure thing? Is it "it may flip or "it will flip"?

Assuming the government and central bank continues to deficit spend to fight the deflation and downturn, then yes, it will flip. If the government and central bank somehow found religion and decided to slash spending and tighten monetary policy, then it wouldn't be guaranteed. But given history and the nature of politicians and bureaucrats I expect the former to be the outcome.
 
Quote from tradingjournals:

The Yen that was out is just credit, not the printed money. If the short Yen transactions (credit) are closed, then the Yen will rise, and no Yens are sent back. The rise in Yen would lower prices in Japan. The Yen is not like the dollar which is used in reserves outside the US. In addition, the lenders to the Japan government are the Japanese. So it is an internal circulation of money. Does this argument make sense?

Yes it does, and yes I was too hasty with that response, but is it really that important. The point I was trying to make with my original post (on page 2) was that Klugman's approach if taken to the end, will result in the demise of the currency involved and hyperinflation, just like Mises said (see my original post). We've had our inflation, in asset prices, not consumer goods, for 40 years, and now it's time for the system to clear it's excesses, which are huge thanks to Greenspan and Bernanke, so the deflation will be huge, but to continue with the madness as Krugman proposes will lead to something infinitely worse. Does this argument make sense?
 
Quote from Ghost of Cutten:

The counterexample to Krugman's point is Asia in 1997-98. There was no stimulus at all, the banking systems collapsed totally unlike this time in the west, and the IMF forced austerity programs, yet the economies came roaring back in 99 and 2000. No long-term debt burden or double digit unemployment or deflation.

If orthodox Schumpter-style creative destruction worked so well that time, and Keynesian policies failed so dismally in Japan in the last 20 years, what evidence is there that the latter are the appropriate response this time?
Awwww, come on, GoC, this is a poor argument...

What percentage of the world's output were the Asian tigers at the end of the 90s? In contrast, what percentage of the world's output do the major Western economies that are at risk today represent?

The whole point about creative destruction is that it's, well, destructive. Or, put it another way, what doesn't kill you does make you stronger, unless, of course, it does kill you. The only meaningful precedent we have, the Great Depression, didn't have a happy ending, as I mentioned in a previous discussion with achilles.

At any rate, I don't agree with Krugman. However, I think that, as usual, the solution is not at either of the two extremes of austerity and unlimited stimulus spending.
 
Quote from Scataphagos:

How so? Overpopulation has its set of problems, but inflation is a monetary phenomenon.... created by government to steal wealth from the citizenry.
Remember the basic rule "demand and supply". As the population increases the demand for all the products and commodities also increases. Whereas the supply is limited. So the price increases. Crude oil reached $145 per barrel due to massive demand from China and India. Real estate prices are sky-high in big cities with high population. I think India's food inflation is 18% or 20%. They have a population of 1.2 billion people. So high population is the root cause of high inflation.
 
Quote from Kassz007:

My inflationary utopia? I don't want inflation either, but it's a hell of a lot better than deflation. By the way, what you're describing in the quoted post is hyper inflation, not inflation. Why you seem to the think hyper-inflation is inevitable is beyond me, especially given the debt levels around the world. There is absolutely zero evidence that hyper-inflation is inevitable. The sole premise for you thinking this is because governments are printing money.

I have no crystal ball, I only deal with facts. The facts remain, that inflation is not at threat at all right now. Deflation, on the other hand, certainly is. And I do know that I would rather have inflation than deflation. Although too much of either option is certainly not a good thing.

You keep coming back to the same point, so I'll try to be clear.

If rampant inflation doesn't take hold, rampant deflation will. It's one, or other. There is no middle ground. Why? The deficit is such a large chunk of economic output, it's impossible to gently extricate ourselves without popping the debt bubble. Nearly half the economy is tied to appreciating asset values, which get flushed if deflation takes root. This is why Beneracke will in all likelihood introduce new, larger QE programs as each successive measure fails. If you think nationalization is a boon for growth, I suggest you move to Russia and see how that worked out for them! Nationalization destroys innovation, investment and jobs because the profit incentive no longer exists in a Government-dominated market. So for every round of quantitative easing (re: "propping"), more jobs are destroyed, investment postponed, and entrepreneurial ventures, scrapped. Paradoxically, the net effect is higher unemployment, collapsing money supply and net deflation, which, from a Keynesian perspective, encourages an even larger round of quantitative easing. The cycle continues until cooler heads prevail (a natural Depression is allowed to take hold), or Central Bankers print more than is naturally being destroyed, and inflation takes off. Zimbabwe is a great example where unemployment and inflation skyrocketed. Japan had several mitigating forces that prevented a quick implosion - mainly their trade surplus, internal appetite for debt, and a Central Bank that opted for a "soft landing/lost decade". Their stock market lost 75% of it's value, from peak to trough, remember. Apply that to the S&P and we'd be at 400. This is what Bernacke and his Wallstreet pals are desperately trying to avoid. But it won't work.

What I'm talking about here is all 'end-of-the-curve', or 'end-of-fiat-fractional-reserve', type-stuff. Recessions are traditionally met with lower interest rates. But after private and public sector borrowing gets maxed out, lower interest rates are no longer stimulative. Hence, quantitative easing/nationalization, which is the last card in the deck to play. After a few rounds of that, it exacerbates unemployment - the condition it was implemented to "solve" - credit destruction, and if prolonged, becomes (hyper)inflationary.
 
Quote from bearice:

Remember the basic rule "demand and supply". As the population increases the demand for all the products and commodities also increases. Whereas the supply is limited. So the price increases. Crude oil reached $145 per barrel due to massive demand from China and India. Real estate prices are sky-high in big cities with high population. I think India's food inflation is 18% or 20%. They have a population of 1.2 billion people.

You're not 100% wrong on this, but nearly. Someone else will have to explain.
 
Quote from Scataphagos:

You're not 100% wrong on this, but nearly. Someone else will have to explain.

You're both right. Debasement, (growing) demand, and (curtailed) supply all contribute to rising prices. Debasement being the most prominent over the long term.
 
Back
Top