Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dean Baker: Surprises in Store for Economists

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-10 11:02 AM
Original message
Dean Baker: Surprises in Store for Economists
Edited on Tue Jun-15-10 11:06 AM by depakid
Some analysts are shocked that US retail sales have declined. Have they lost their grasp of basic economic concepts?

he commerce department reported that retail sales in May were down by 1.2% from April. This surprised most economists who had expected a modest increase. The media were filled with accounts of economists trying to explain why consumers were still reluctant to open up their wallets and spend in a big way. It would have been much more interesting to hear accounts of why economists were surprised.

There is always a large random element in month-to-month movements in retail sales or any other economic variable. Therefore no one is ever going to be able to explain these changes with any precision. (The data are also subject to large revisions, so it is entirely possible that revised data will look very different from the report released last week (pdf).)

Nonetheless, there is little basis for the surprise shown by so many economic analysts. With few exceptions these analysts failed to see the $8tn housing bubble, the collapse of which sank the economy. Remarkably, even now they apparently cannot understand its importance.

To put it as simply as possible (so even an economist can understand it), the housing bubble was driving the economy in the period prior to its collapse, beginning in 2007. It drove the economy in two ways. The run up in house prices led to a building boom. Residential construction, which is typically less than 4% of GDP, rose to more than 6%, creating more than $300bn in additional annual demand. A bubble in non-residential real estate added perhaps another $150bn to annual demand.

The bubble also drove the economy through the effect of housing wealth on consumption. Economists usually estimate that $1 of additional housing wealth increases annual consumption by between 5-7 cents. This implies that the $8tn of housing bubble wealth would lead increase consumption by $400bn to $560bn a year.

With most of the bubble wealth eliminated by the collapse of house prices over the last three years, we should expect a sharp drop in consumption. Furthermore, stock prices have lost a bit less than a third of their value (around $6tn), which we should expect to cause a further decline in consumption. With the stock wealth effect estimated at 3-4 cents on the dollar, the decline in stock prices should have reduced annual consumption by $180bn to $240bn. In total we should expect to see annual consumption have dropped by between $600bn and $900bn as a result of the loss of housing and stock wealth.

This is all very simple arithmetic and basic economics.

More: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/15-1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Bonhomme Richard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-10 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
1. If they conceded that prior growth was the result the fake wealth of ....
the consumer based on home equity then the only conclusion for real growth is a real increase in peoples wages. No corporate sponsored economist is going to want to touch that one.
They do know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Citizen Worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-10 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
2. Increasing wages is what drives increased demand
The corporate sponsored economists know that there has been a net decline in disposable income going back to 1973 but they are not going to talk about it. Brookings Institute released a study in Nov 2007 that showed an average loss of $1,800.00 from '73 through '06. That's why it was necessary to "create" false wealth via the housing bubble. If real wages weren't increasing there had to be growth created in some form to feed the consumption engine of the economy. Until wages increase substantially growth in the economy will have to be sustained through credit and we all know how well that worked in the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hestia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-10 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
3. Could it be that there nothing really worth buying, especially if buying a product
puts them and others out of work? We debated on going on Vacation, spending a bit of money but have decided to stay home. We did buy a small TV since the one we've had since 1991 went out, but that is the only reason why. Besides, after this whole Gulf Disaster (or whatever the moniker de jour is), who really wants to go out and have a great time right now? Of course, this may be the last chance to see the white sands for the rest of my lifetime, so we did think about going to Florida for a couple of days. If I didn't need clothing for work, I'd probably not step into a dept store. Grocery shopping is about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlipperySlope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-10 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
4. Frugality Fatique won't be enough to pull us out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC