본문 바로가기

경제

Deflation, Deleveraging, and the Stimulus Effect

Forecast 2009: Deflation and Recession
January 10, 2009
By John Mauldin

We had a brief period last summer where inflation (as measured by the Consumer Price Index or CPI) was over 5%, and the trend was clearly up. The increase was almost entirely due to food and energy costs. Core inflation (less food and energy) was around 2%. Many commentators noted that real people actually bought gas and food and we should look at overall CPI and not just core. Now, with the drop in food and energy costs, their impact has vanished.

For the three months ending last November, the compound annual rate for the CPI was a negative(!) -10.2%, reflecting the almost 70% drop in energy. Annualized core CPI for the last three months ending November was a very low 0.4%. November CPI was a flat 0.0%. It has been falling steadily for the last five months.

소비자 물가지수가 -10.2%를 기록할 정도로 오히려 물가는 떨어지고 있는 디플레이션이 진행중이며, 이는 경제 주체들의 수익성 하락에 결정적 타격을 주고있다. 

Now we have a structural problem in that deflation has the potential to get some very real traction
going forward. Why? Because not just in the US, but all over the world, we built too much of almost everything. Too many houses, too many manufacturing plants, too many retail stores — and just too much stuff.

In the US, capacity utilization is falling rapidly. Typically, if we produce “stuff” (cars, food, lumber, etc.) in
the range of 80% of potential capacity, that is considered to be a good economy. Capacity utilization has been dropping for some time and is down below 75% for all industries, but in many industries is close to 70%. And the clear trend when looking at ISM manufacturing statistics is that it has a lot further to fall.

That means industries have no pricing power, as they can make a lot more “stuff” than they can sell. And when demand due to the recession drops as well, prices fall as producers try to stay in business.

근본적인 이유는 그동안의 경제 호황기때 과잉 투자된 생산 설비와 부동산등이 이제는 수요를 초과하기 때문이였다.

Unemployment could rise to 9-10% or more this year and on into 2010. That means we could easily see another 3 million lost jobs over the next year. That is going to put a lot of negative pressure on consumer spending. It also means that wages are not likely to rise, and we have already hard evidence of wages falling in many industries as companies try to find ways to remain solvent.

And that 9% will be the headline number. If you add people who have part-time jobs but would like a full-time job, and what are called marginally attached workers, the current rate is already 13.5%.

생산설비 감축 등의 구조조정은 실업률 증가와 직접적으로 연관이 있고, 이는 구매력 감소와 연결이 된다.

Obama and his advisors have signaled they intend to run a deficit of at least a trillion dollars. Right now, as I add it up, it is more like $1.3 trillion (the stimulus number keeps moving), and given that tax receipts are going to drop and unemployment benefits will rise (care to bet that unemployment benefits won’t be extended to 52 weeks instead of the current 26?), it could be closer to $1.7-2 trillion. That would be almost 15% of GDP!

Lowering rates isn’t enough to get consumers to spend when they have seen their wealth erode from losses in the value of their houses and investment portfolios and retirement accounts. The stimulus last summer was largely saved or used to pay down debt. What was an annualized stimulus of 3% of GDP in the second quarter, which is quite large, only kept GDP growth positive for one quarter.

Obama talks about creating 3 million jobs. If he can do it, that would only partially offset the job losses
that will happen in his first year in office. But it will take a long time for much of the stimulus he is talking about to make its way into the economy. You can’t turn on infrastructure projects in one quarter. It takes a lot of time to plan. New green power plants? Wonderful. I’m all for it. But they take years to
authorize and build. Tax cuts? Again, much of it will be saved or used for debt.

The reality is that the US and much of the world are going to see their economies shrink for at least another year. And when that new, lower level is reached, the economy will slowly start to grow again. Remember those 71,000 retail stores closing? That means that those left standing will get more business and will be able to expand and grow and hire people. That is how recessions work. Excess capacity is worked through. Businesses cut back until they can get positive cash flow.

In 1978, in the midst of high inflation, bear markets, and malaise about all our jobs going overseas, the
correct answer to the question “Where will all the needed new jobs come from?” was “I don’t know, but they will.” That is the correct answer today. That is what free markets and capitalism do. They find a way to make new paths and new businesses where none existed before. And it will happen again. Just with a little lag this time.

오바마는 가능한 모든 방법을 동원하여 경제 활성화 정책을 실행 하겠지만, 먼저 효과가 기대하는 것만큼 빠르지 않을 것이고, 덧붙서 전통적인 경제 활성 정책의 효율성에 대해서는 증명된 것이 없다.