What Could Cause the Next Recession

October 15, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (7)

If nothing terrible happens, the economy is likely to muddle along for a while, slowly gain momentum next year, and start to feel normal again by 2012 or 2013. By then, unemployment should be consistently improving, which will help revive the housing market and finally boost consumer spending.

[See 12 ways to stop America's decline.]

But with the economy growing at an anemic 2 percent or so, there's little margin for error, and the usual forces that bring a decisive end to recessions—like pent-up demand for housing or a spike in consumer spending—haven't materialized. That leaves the odds of a double-dip recession uncomfortably high. The Federal Reserve is sufficiently concerned that it's likely to start buying big pools of Treasury securities soon, the second dose of "quantitative easing" since 2009. If it works, injecting money into the economy will drive interest rates even lower, trigger a rally in stocks and bonds, boost exports by devaluing the dollar, and persuade companies to start spending nearly $2 trillion in cash that they're hoarding. But a year ago, most economists thought the Fed would be unwinding its extraordinary asset purchases by now, not adding to them. So predictions about the future of the economy carry less weight than ever.

The fragile recovery continues to spook investors, who worry that a relatively minor disruption might be all it takes to trigger a second bout of recession. Here are five of their biggest concerns:

A "policy mistake." If Republicans take over one or both houses of Congress in the midterm elections, as expected, it will probably spell an end to President Obama's reformist agenda. The conventional wisdom is that such a change would be good for businesses because they'd have less reason to worry about higher taxes or new regulations. But there are also many unknowns that would come with a split government and the gridlock it's likely to entail.

[See how the middle class is shrinking.]

If a new regime in Washington were to impose some kind of austerity program in order to tackle the national debt, it could shock markets that aren't expecting that to happen for a couple of years, at least. It would also shock investors if Congress were to let all the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule at the end of 2010, effectively raising everybody's taxes, since it's widely expected that a lame-duck Congress will temporarily extend those measure for most taxpayers, if not all. In fact, any kind of move that disrupted government spending, added unexpectedly to the debt or changed much at all could rattle investor confidence. The irony for Republicans who want to rewrite Washington's agenda is that a continuation of the status quo—including the full spendout of the 2009 stimulus funds—might be what the economy needs most.

Quantitative easing fails. The Fed faces the tricky task of convincing businesses and investors that it has powerful ammunition, without firing so much of it that it seems like a desperation move. Since late August, when Fed chairman Ben Bernanke first suggested that more easing was on the way, stocks have surged, based largely on the mere expectation of Fed action. The last round of easing triggered a huge stock market rally, since investors who sold securities to the Fed suddenly had money they needed to invest in something, and much of it went into stocks, pushing up prices. That's largely the point of quantitative easing—to compel investors to move their money out of safe, low-yielding investments into other securities that will do more to boost economic activity. Investors expect the same kind of rally this time, so they're already putting money into stocks and other assets, hoping to realize gains once the Fed program revs up.

[See how unemployment will swing the midterm elections.]

But the Fed hasn't yet said how much money it plans to inject into the economy, and if the Fed undershoots or overshoots or triggers an asset bubble or other unwelcome side effects, confidence will plummet. The Fed is the most powerful financial institution in the world, and investors have high expectations when the Fed acts. So it's not enough for the Fed to slightly improve economic conditions. Its moves must seem decisive, or they'll be considered a failure.

China dumps U.S. Treasuries. It's well-known that China is the biggest foreign holder of debt issued by the U.S. government. That serves the interests of both countries: It helps China keep its currency low, which makes its exports cheap, while helping the U.S. government run a deficit and keeping interest rates low here. If China were to abruptly dump significant amounts of treasuries, interest rates would spike and the U.S. government would have to pay more to borrow. That alone would probably trigger a recession. China would feel the pain too, since it's heavily dependent on exports to the United States, which would fall. So a provocative move by China seems unlikely.

Still, China has gradually reduced its holdings of U.S. treasuries over the last year, and tensions over interest rates and trade policy have been rising. Some members of Congress, for example, have called for tariffs on Chinese goods if China doesn't let its currency appreciate more. Some Chinese officials, meanwhile, have criticized profligate U.S. borrowing and hinted that China may permanently divest its U.S. holdings. Such rhetoric is nothing new, but if it turned into action it could easily destabilize the markets and send skittish investors back into their shells.

[See three myths about disappearing prosperity.]

An emerging-market bubble. Developing countries like China, India, and Brazil are recovering from the global recession much faster than mature economies like Europe and the United States. That's fueling a global recovery that's stronger than it would if the United States and Europe set the pace. But emerging markets often lack transparency, and investors worry about emerging market bubbles in real estate, infrastructure, and other types of assets. China gets particular attention because of an urban real estate boom that seems out of proportion to the needs or purchasing power of local citizens. A bust, coupled with major write-offs at Chinese banks, could suppress the whole Asian economy and force China into currency manipulation or other moves that would ripple throughout the world. The risks of emerging market problems have risen as investors have funneled more money into those economies, seeking higher returns that come from faster growth. Some worry it could be too much money.

[See how to tell when the recession's really over.]

Other "sovereign" risks. The European Union has bailed out Greece for the time being, but there are still doubts about whether Ireland, Spain, Italy, and Portugal can pay off their medium- and long-term debts. A solvency problem in those countries would dwarf the trouble in Greece, and it's not clear whether Europe could muster a bailout that big. Even if there's no crisis, the amount of money required for debt service will impair those four economies for years and hold back the overall Eurozone economy. Recent history also shows that while all eyes are on a small set of countries, trouble could come from someplace else getting less attention right now. And the global shudder caused by the Greek crisis earlier this year—which effectively halted a worldwide stock-market rally—shows how even a small country can cause widespread economic damage. With so much that could go wrong, muddling through might not seem so bad.

Tags:
recession,
economy,
China,
Greece,
economic stimulus

Reader Comments Read all comments (7)

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

Frankly, I think the blame is quite probably far more general than most of us are willing to admit. Though I won't make specific accusations of anyone of being ill-meaning, consider that many of our current financial problems are, ultimately, rooted in poor decision making. From what I've seen, many of those poor decisions seem to be driven by greed trumping wisdom--and not all of those decisions were made by others. And now, we're all reeling from the blow.

It makes sense for people, in difficult economic times, to want to "baton down the hatches" and be more careful. While this may be a bad thing for economies driven by consumption, perhaps we ought to take time to realize that a consumer-based economy consumes, meaning that it will always be dependent on those who produce.

I suggest that we may want to take some time to see if we can't--albeit slowly and painfully--adjust our economy back to one that is more a producing economy that can sustain itself.

To that end, I suggest that we teach our children both fiscal and moral responsibility, and let them learn from our mistakes, rather than letting them make these same mistakes some years from now. I think we should teach our children to live within their means, to be very, very careful with the risks they take, and to be willing to accept that they don't need to be in the "top-fifth" of earners in order to be worthwhile, "successful" human beings.

This "Great Recession" took a couple of decades to properly set up. I don't think we can fix it overnight, and I don't think that blaming others will do much toward that goal.

S Johnson of UT 9:24AM December 06, 2010

The Chinese are in a position to win a "war" for world domination economically rather than militarily. They own Wall Street. If they call our notes economic chaos will follow. So what if their citizens experience a bit of hardship because Walmart can no longer afford their products - they were all 3rd-world until very recently. China takes the long view - they've been around for thousands of years. We can't see past the next election cycle. Time to pay off our debt.

We can take steps to pay down the deficit: a national VAT, a gradually increasing gasoline tax, eliminating the wage cap on Social Security, eliminating the home-mortgage deduction, etc, but I doubt that the new revenues will actually go to deficit reduction - Capitol Hill will just spend it all. And even if they didn't now, would any policy survive the next election cycle?

rowlandw of MA 8:39PM December 05, 2010

The government is looking for major chaos and control, taking the wrong steps on purpose. They know at our currrent population rate the earth will be in jeopardy. Subtle actions are taken in order to avoid pandemonium, and finish their agenda. Government manipulates lies into the mainstream media, which speak of a better tomorrow.

The only true source is biblical sustainability, I have found it to be the same fingerprint match of our current timeline.

Mr. B of FL 12:29PM December 05, 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