SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (143259)1/11/2002 8:30:52 PM
From: Petrol  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 436258
 
usatoday.com

Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank President Anthony Santomero spoke with USA TODAY twice for this interview — once just days before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and again in early January. In early September, he was just beginning to sense the "mixed news" that might be signaling a turning point in the economy, from slump to the early stages of a recovery. But the attacks changed all that, worsening the downturn and erasing the faint signs of a rebound. Now he sees a recovery again but not a very strong one and no time soon. In this latest conversation with USA TODAY economic reporter George Hager, Santomero gives his view of where he thinks the economy is headed this year and talks about a key worry: what consumers will do. Excerpts:

Q: Is the economy headed for recovery?

A: The consensus had been for a recovery in the first quarter, and it seems to be slowly drifting to the second quarter. My own view is we have come a long way. Sept. 11 obviously was a negative shock to the economy, and the question was: How big a shock and how would consumers react? The good news is that consumer spending has held up quite well; 2002 is going to be a period of recovery.


From outside professor to Philly Fed bank chief
All checks make odd pilgrimage to one of 12 regional banks



The foundation is being set as we speak. (The consensus says) the inventory (reduction) that has taken place over the last four quarters will start to lead to restocking. Consumers will hold up, government spending will increase, the weakness of world markets will subside somewhat. I think all of that's right, (but) there are a couple of risks I'm concerned about.

My concern is that what is necessary for a substantial recovery is that households continue to spend and that employment levels don't deteriorate as a result of bad retail sales numbers. There is a risk that the bounce-back in the first quarter or two will be a bit slower than what some forecasters suggest.

(Also, businesses') capital expenditure was part of the story in the decline in growth, (and) capital expenditure isn't going to stabilize and start to increase until the markets start to improve. That will require an increase in spending on the household side.

Q: Where do you disagree with the consensus?

A: I concur with the consensus forecasts that 2002 is going to be a rebuilding and recovery year. I think it's going to be a little bit slower than the consensus. I don't look for a strong bounce-back in the first or second quarter. We should keep in mind that unemployment rates will continue to climb until GDP growth is on the order of 2% to 3%, so even if the recovery begins in the second quarter, unemployment is likely to edge upward until midyear.

I'm pleased by the recent statistics that show some solid foundation numbers. (The way this works is that) all bad news turns into mixed news; then we build a foundation for positive growth going forward, and I think you're starting to see that.

Q: Have we hit bottom yet?

A: I hope we have hit bottom, and I really do think the next several weeks are going to tell.

Q: Where do you see consumers going?

A: What we are seeing at this point is a cautious consumer, a price-conscious consumer. There are early indications of a November-December retail sales number that is up slightly year-over-year. (Consumers are) still to a large extent spending, and (that's) relatively positive.

(But) consumers' caution will lead to some retrenchment in spending, and this is one of the reasons why I'm a bit cautious about what happens in the first and second quarters. They're likely to do a bit more saving and a bit less spending in the first quarter. To the extent that people feel ill at ease about (jobs), we are going to see some backing off (from spending).

Q: What about the business people you talk to?

A: They're cautious; they're not discouraged. They do not think that everything is back to the pre-2000 period of boom. They're sensitive to prices. You also see it in some of the retail sales numbers — top-end stores are somewhat weaker than bargain stores. That's all symptomatic of businesses and households that are watching their money closely.

Businesses are going to want to see the return of the customer before they return (to investing and hiring).

Q: What's your sense from what you see personally around Philadelphia?

A: My wife teases me about going to the malls and looking around at how many (shopping) bags there are. I do in fact wander around. I try to observe the traffic flows. I try to understand what's going on.

What I observed (recently) was a reasonable level of both traffic and purchases — more traffic than people might have thought, but no more purchases. There was a lot more traffic than bags. I for one will be watching very closely the statistics on December retail sales and what that bodes for the first quarter of 2002.



To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (143259)1/11/2002 8:35:49 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 436258
 
Credit Bubble Bulletin is a bit long-winded tonight, but the conclusion is hilarious, with a great show of hubris by the Fed's one and only McSteer:

prudentbear.com

I almost discarded the following quote from Mr. McTeer and my too cynical by half comments regarding the unfolding Argentine crisis. I will attach them here at the end, but they certainly can be disregarded.

“I didn’t mean to put (in my speech) Argentina right after Europe, but you know there’s parallels. Argentina is a disaster right now. It’s a slow train wreck that we’re still watching. Ten years ago they had hyperinflation. I went down there in ’96 and went to a flea market and bought some currency – a handful of Argentine currency for $10. It was worthless. Around ’91 they pegged their Argentine peso to the dollar at a one-to-one basis to set up a currency board arrangement so the central bank couldn’t create pesos unless it had dollar reserves – a dollar for each peso created. That was killing inflation cold turkey. It worked; they went from hyperinflation to zero. In the ‘90s their inflation performance was a little better than ours, because they were pegged off the dollar. But the dollar kept getting stronger and stronger. Here they are tied to this dollar. And like Europe but worse, their internal institutions weren’t quite as good and flexible – their internal policies weren’t quite good enough to manage within that straightjacket that they were in. Particularly, they continued to run very large fiscal deficits, not just at the federal level but at a more local level. And their labor unions remain very strong and labor flexibility is pretty much lacking there as well as in Europe.

But I was there the first time in ’96. I think things were getting much better – they were in the middle of a boom. But their unemployment rate was still 17% and it’s gone up from that lately. They’ve been in recession for about four years now. They had two ways they could go. They could have strengthened that link to the dollar by going ahead and dollarizing – getting rid of their own currency and using the U.S. dollar as their currency. That would have helped them lower some interest rates. To the extent that interest rates were higher because of exchange risk, that would have eliminated that and interest rates would have been lower. On the other hand, it would have been a (inaudible) strong currency and having to suffer the consequences of having their currency strong when they are already not very competitive internationally. My conventional wisdom was that they had no choice but to stay with their peg or make it stronger with dollarization. Because of their history, they are sort of like an alcoholic who hasn’t had a drink in ten years. It’s all going to fall apart if they start drinking now. What they’ve done is they’ve just broken out the bottle.” Robert D. McTeer, President of Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, January 8, 2002

What’s that expression about people living in glass houses and throwing stones? Argentina, like many nations (and certainly the U.S. to this day), borrowed in excess when the marketplace was overly accommodative. The outcome was a most regrettable and untenable Credit Bubble. When the speculative environment and related economic boom reversed, as they always do, Argentina’s dollar-linked Credit system ground to a halt. The economy followed. Much of the foreign-sourced finance then wanted out, but the dollars had long since been spent. The Argentines lost access to new finance, while at the same time faced with the unusual and problematic circumstance of suffering from an overvalued currency. They, unlike the U.S., did not enjoy the status of the world’s reserve currency, nor did they have the capacity to collapse domestic interest rates, incite stimulating speculation and Credit creation, whereby fostering an enormous “reliquefication” of their financial system. Their system specifically prohibited such processes that allow governmental and central bank (and financial systems) attempts to inflate out of trouble.

So I can’t resist expanding on Mr. McTeer’s “alcoholic” analogy: Having hit absolute “rock bottom,” Argentina understood clearly that it had an acute addiction problem and was willing to take the “hard medicine” to go “cold turkey” in the early ‘90s. It terminated alcohol consumption – over-expansion of its domestic money supply - with the introduction of a vaunted dollar-peg currency board program (“I am a monetary alcoholic…I will not use bank deposits…”), as prescribed by the U.S. and I.M.F “substance abuse physicians”. After a difficult “detox” period, the alcohol-free outpatient was rejuvenated and ecstatic to be off the bottle. Yet despite the reality that Argentina was becoming increasingly fond of those old-favorite little blue Credit pills, no one seemed to mind the little extra spring in Argentina’s step (“But don’t you dare take a sip of that devil’s potion!”). Indeed, the confident doctors as much as suggested that those little blue Credit pills were just rewards for “staying on the wagon.” From the get-go, the medical profession was more than happy to watch their pharmacist friends (a.k.a. little blue Credit pill “drug pushers”) excitedly run down to Argentina to walk the streets, make friends in the neighborhood, and hand out lots of free samples, while all the while preparing to deal in size. They’ve dealt in this neighborhood before, and with the introduction of this new “treatment program”…

Over time, not surprisingly, the craving for little blue Credit pills became intense, with Argentina quite willing to pay a high price to ensure an uninterrupted supply. The “profiteers” arrived in droves, having procured mountains of little blue Credit pills from lower-priced markets in the U.S., Europe and Japan to distribute to the increasingly insistent but outwardly composed addict. Everyone celebrated. The doctors were absolutely giddy with their obviously successful diagnosis and treatment. Then there were those “pushers,” more than content to deal under the auspices of the medical authorities. And, importantly, the patient was no longer a blustering, stumbling drunk, but was instead demonstrating a newfound energy, intensity – a refreshing vigor. The “pushers” and the “profiteers”, however, were becoming increasingly concerned. Not only had Argentina accumulated an enormous tab, it was becoming a more unstable customer.

As has become the accustomed “dealer” routine, they were on the lookout for “deadbeats” and ready to “cut bait.” The “pushers” terminated Argentina’s supply of little blue Credit pills and moved quickly to much “greener pastures” up north. To the helpless addict, the results were catastrophic. Knowing all too well the excruciating and unmanageable reactions in store, the acutely desperate addict is willing to do anything to ease the pain – all that matters is to get through each day – each hour. Meantime, the “doctors,” careful not to show any public alarm, remorse, or let slip any utterance that might implicate their malpractice, quickly distance themselves from the terribly ill. They’re sticking with their story: the original diagnosis and treatment were correct. It was the pathologic, once again, that succumbed to his affliction. To cover themselves, (from a safe distance) they are quick to publicly chastise the “alcoholic” for so senselessly having “broken out the bottle.” Yet those that recognize the illness and the popular delusions are terrified by the quantities of these blue Credit “horse pills” being devoured elsewhere. The “moral of the story” is that it is appropriate to fault Argentina, but there is plenty of blame to be shared by the lending and speculating communities, economic doctrine, the economic “puppet masters” and the global financial system generally. And, unfortunately, there are lots of other “addicts.