To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (68027 ) 1/30/2001 8:36:30 PM From: Zeev Hed Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 99985 George, about a year ago or so, I wrote a post (which I cannot find) in which I "warned" about the dangers of excessive budget surpluses, such surpluses could precede an economic slow down, and even a recession.. We have had a very long period without such surpluses, so it is difficult to check the historical records (at least I do not have them handy). The rationale, however is quite simple, a budget surplus means that the government is taking out more money from the economy that it is injecting back in, thus in essence reducing end demand, particularly in periods where economic growth slows under the level of surplus growth. Thus, if the surplus this year is going to be let say $200 Billions, but the economy grows only at 2%, the whole economic growth is absorbed by the surplus, and eventually, demand will sag. Recessions by themselves are also adjusting mechanisms, and psychological factors in the birth of recessions are almost as important as "money flows" into and out of the economy. Right now, if consumer confidence does not decline much further, the reduction in rates should inject sufficient funds to compensate for the "inventory correction" we have, IMHO. If consumers lose confidence and start cutting on spending (thus rebuilding their own balance sheet with the "tax reduction" lower interest rates provide), sure we could get into a recession. As for Levy's analysis, I can easily see other outcomes to the current malaise, as you know, I have a long term "forecast of the market staying in a broad trading range for 5 to seven years or so, during that time, new and more balance equilibria can be established to rectify some of the current imbalances without going into a major 1930 type period he suggests we may enter. Of course, financial accidents may (and will) happen, but with the extensive "security blanket" now in place, I cannot see a period of 30% contraction in economic activity as we had in the thirties. One outcome could be the judicious use of both fiscal and monetary policies. I for one like what the feds are doing to allow immediate injection of money into the system by lowering rate, but I think that if we implement a very large ax cut in conjunction with that, it may force the fed's six months hence to start a new cycle of tightening. I would rather see a gradual tax reduction scheme, in essence, keeping the budget surplus in the range of $50 to $150 B year, without making a very sharp "U" turn in which a lot of tax relief ends up putting pressure on prices, forcing the feds to tighten again and get us into a real recession and budget deficits. I find that every time we do a drastic change in taxation or spending we create new imbalances, gradualism, on the other hand allows all market participants to change their own business planning to changing conditions without "dislocations". IMHO, the best approach to tax relief (which will also maximize end demand) would be a gradual yearly shift of the transition between the 15% tax bracket and the 28% (with a slower increase of the threshold for the 15% bracket, for instance through increases of personal exemptions) until the 28% bracket is eliminated. That will give all tax payers (almost all tax payers) the same tax break, but will concentrate the funds reinjection" into the economy where most will go to revive consumption or rebuild consumers' balance sheet. Zeev Zeev