5 Reasons a Double-Dip Recession Could Happen

June 30, 2010 RSS Feed Print

Most economists still think the odds of a relapse are low, but the listless economy is starting to resemble a moribund patient who doesn't respond to conventional treatment. The government has transfused trillions of dollars of aid into the economy, defibrillated the banking sector, subsidized housing for millions, and propped up other sectors, like autos. Yet hiring is far weaker than it should be, stocks have tumbled, consumers are depressed, and skeptics are predicting a dreaded double-dip recession. Here's why it could happen:

The stock market boom might have been artificial. After a steep plunge in 2008 and early 2009, stocks began an epic rebound in March 2009, rising about 83 percent over the next 13 months. In the traditional view, rising stocks are a leading indicator that ultimately helps pull the broader economy out of recession. So the rally seemed like a preview of a healthy recovery. But it's also possible that something else was going on. Beginning in March of last year, the Federal Reserve began an enormous program to buy mortgage-backed securities in order to help stabilize the housing market. The Fed ultimately injected about $1.2 trillion of capital into securities markets, which by some accounts is the largest "buy" program ever. The investors who sold the Fed all those mortgage-backed securities suddenly had cash they needed to invest in something else, and some of that money found its way to the stock market.

[See 11 ways to plan for a double-dip recession.]

The Fed stopped buying those securities in April of this year, the same month that the bull market ended. So by accident or not, the stock market rally tracked the Fed's MBS-purchase program almost perfectly. If it was the Fed's activity that stoked the market rally—and not an inherent improvement in the underlying economy—then sooner or later the markets will fall back to their "natural" levels and stay there until the real economy picks up steam. That may explain a big chunk of the 15 percent decline since April.

The housing market can't stand on its own. After a three-year skid, housing prices seemed to be bottoming out last fall. But those cheering a "recovery" overlooked the fact that government tax credits were fueling many purchases and that two insolvent government agencies—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—were responsible for the vast majority of new mortgages issued. Plus the Fed was helping push mortgage rates artificially low with its own mortgage purchases. Housing is a vital part of the economy, representing about one-sixth of all activity, yet it's being held together right now by the financial equivalent of duct tape.

[See 4 things financial reform won't do for you.]

Nobody knows what the housing market would look like without all the government life support—but we got a recent, disturbing glimpse. Housing sales plummeted after the tax credit finally expired in April, and when demand falls, prices usually follow. So the housing bust seems likely to persist into a fourth or even fifth year, and if the government curtailed all of its subsidies, the bust might last a decade. It's hard to envision a robust recovery without a healthy housing market.

Consumers are broke. Income growth is weak—for those lucky enough to have an income—and household debt is still close to record levels, which doesn't leave consumers much money to fuel a recovery. As incomes stagnated over the last decade, consumers borrowed through their credit cards or home equity to support their spending habits. That kept the economy going. But now that home equity has plunged and banks have tightened credit—as they probably should have done 10 years ago—more consumers will have to save money before they spend it. It's a good habit to learn, but it's going to take time to pay down all that debt and rebuild wealth. Meanwhile, economists are wondering what might replace lost spending, which is what keeps the economy growing. For the past two years, it's been the government. That can't last.

[See why voters will get a lot angrier.]

The stimulus is running out. Last year's $787 billion stimulus act wasn't popular, but we might actually miss it once it's gone. Among other things, that money prevented a lot of layoffs that would have sent the unemployment rate higher. Politicians dicker over how many jobs it saved, but if the economy doesn't get better soon we may get a better sense of that. State and local governments, for example, are poised to lay off thousands of teachers, firefighters, and other workers if tax revenues don't go up. They're begging the federal government for more aid, but this time the opposition in Congress is strong, since many legislators feel Washington can no longer afford to help. If states have to slash more services and raise taxes further, it will crimp consumers who are already under stress.

[See 6 strains on your financial future.]

Europe is a mess. Worries over Greece have cooled for now, but Europe's debt crisis remains a huge problem that could still derail world financial markets. Half a dozen European countries have problematic debt loads, and defaults or cut-rate refinancing could harm banks in stalwarts like Germany and France, which hold much of the debt. On top of that, several European countries, including the U.K., could slide back into recession, according to Moody's Economy.com. That doesn't mean the United States will follow, but it will dampen demand for U.S. exports and hold back American companies that operate in Europe. Maybe it's good news that we're better off than Europe. But not good enough.

Tags:
economy,
recession

Reader Comments Read all comments (31)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

At this point who cares!

bob of IA 3:42AM December 22, 2011

Extract the birth/death ratio (people to old or young to be part of the workforce) and unemployment is above 20%.

The great depression was defined as so by an unemployment rate of 25%.

WAKE UP - THE GOVERNMENT LIES TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY EVERY SINGLE DAY.

THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT ANY ONE OF US.

Constitutionalist of MA 12:39AM December 16, 2010

Harvard Professor Kenneth Rogoff recently appeared on “All Things Considered” and raised the possibility of Congress taking action that could lead to a ‘trade war,’ like a tariff on goods from China …[The U.S. has] 15 million people unemployed. Fiscal policy has reached its limits. Monetary policy is testing its limits. [They are] going to be fishing around for something else.”

He got it backwards.

Real fiscal policy has hardly been used at all to end this recession. The TARP/Bailout funds were too “Wall Street-specific” and did very little for Main Street. The Stimulus Package was less than 1/2 the size it needed to be, and 1/5 of it went to business tax relief – a notoriously ineffective tool when the major problem is lack of consumer demand.

On the other hand, monetary policy might be even less effective. For example: the plan which was recently announced by the Federal Reserve to buy $600B of long-term US Treasury bonds from American banks. The theory is relatively simple: increase the money supply. You see, if commercial banks give treasury bonds to the Fed in exchange for cash, then the banks will have more cash reserves, which will enable them to make more loans. Buying treasury bonds will also drive up the price of treasury bonds, which has the effect of lowering the rate of interest.

But what good will more cash reserves and lower interest rates do for the unemployment picture? Interest rates are already at historic lows and cash reserves are high yet (1) banks are not lending to small businesses and (2) big businesses are borrowing, but they are not spending on new plants, equipment, or jobs. Rather, they are stockpiling cash until the economy improves.

Which brings us to an old economists’ saying : “You can’t push a wagon with a rope.”

That is, monetary policy is ineffective in a recession because businesses do not build new facilities and hire more workers when there is not enough demand to sell all of their current productive capacity.

What might “real” fiscal policy look like?

Here’s one suggestion: Let all the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010. The ‘lame-duck’ Congress can do this simply by doing nothing.

Next, spend much of the $70 billion saved each year (by not extending the tax cuts to the wealthiest 2%) to fund alternative energy projects like wind & solar power, ocean tidal power, and upgrading our electrical grid. (This is not an atypical use of Federal Dollars, by the way. Millions of Americans have electricity in their homes today as a result of TVA dams. Railroads were heavily subsidized by Federal land grants. Today’s trucking industry would barely exist without the Interstate Highway Acts.) This will provide jobs in infant industries that are still viewed as too risky to attract the big money needed for them to get a foothold.

Which is why, if Congress is fishing around for something else to try, they might want to try what only government can do: tax & spend.

VRin Michigan of MI 10:02AM November 23, 2010

Rick Newman

Rick Newman

The global economy is mysterious, even scary. Chief Business Correspondent Rick Newman connects the dots. In addition to his writing for U.S. News, Rick is the co-author of two books: Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11, and Bury Us Upside Down: The Misty Pilots and the Secret Battle for the Ho Chi Minh Trail.


Read Rick's latest blog entries here.

advertisement

advertisement