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.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (3400)7/28/2002 11:19:53 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
Will Wall Street Squash Growth?

BusinessWeek Online
August 5, 2002

If the market rout continues, consumers and execs could cut spending--and slow the recovery

To hear most economists tell it, growth is on a glide path to a vigorous expansion. Consumer spending is still strong, and the housing market remains buoyant. With corporate profits for most companies perking up, the last pieces needed for a full-bore recovery are about to fall into place: stepped-up hiring by business and increased capital spending.

It all sounds just fine. And a lot of the economic data even seems to bear it out. There's just one problem. Should the savage sell-off in the stock market continue, it could swamp all that good news and turn economists' rosy scenario into a far darker one. The sudden swoon in shares has left investors shell-shocked. Despite July 24's huge rally, the market is still off 13.6% since President Bush spoke to Wall Street earlier in the month. Even if a rally develops, the market slide has finally driven home to Americans that they can no longer depend on the stock market to do their saving for them. That's got many reassessing their free-spending ways. "Now I'm not going to get a new BMW," says 28-year-old Scott McAuliffe of Atlanta. "Instead, I'm going to get a used Honda Accord." Multiply that caution across millions of Americans and it's easy to see why trouble may be brewing for the economy despite a recovery that ostensibly began at the start of the year.

But it's not just personal consumption that will be at risk if stocks keep sliding. The collapse of the market and the vilification of once-venerated CEOs are threatening to paralyze corporate decision-making. Faced with a barrage of criticism from shareholders and lawmakers, corporate chieftains are hunkering down, focusing on cleaning up balance sheets rather than building business. They're delaying expansion plans and putting off hiring. That's imperiling the much-hoped-for business-led bounce in the economy in the months ahead. "The market is telling us the economy is going to be very weak in the second half," says James W. Paulsen, chief investment officer for Wells Capital Management.

How weak? Well, most macroeconomic models, including those employed by the Federal Reserve and the White House, reckon that the collapse in stock prices this year will shave anywhere from a half to one full percentage point off economic growth in the coming year. Says White House chief economist R. Glenn Hubbard: If stocks don't recover, "it would be a substantial effect. But it wouldn't derail the recovery."

Those models, though, assume that interest rates fall in response to the carnage in the stock market, cushioning the blow to the economy. Treasury bond yields and mortgage rates have dropped as stocks have tanked. But worries about the veracity of corporate balance sheets have kept corporate bond yields from enjoying a similar fall. And Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has shown no sign yet of being willing to cut short-term interest rates, although Greenspan would undoubtedly act if the financial markets suddenly seized up. There was a whiff of that happening early on July 24 as Treasury bond yields plunged on a flight by investors to liquidity. But the danger passed as the stock market rallied.

What's more, the models don't pretend to predict whether the crisis on Wall Street will lead to a wholesale breakdown in confidence on Main Street. "The sharp break in the stock market creates uncertainty, and the uncertainty itself can have an effect on spending," says Chris Varvares, president of consultants Macroeconomic Advisers LLC.

So far, that doesn't seem to be happening. Yes, consumer confidence tumbled in July to its lowest level in eight months. But comments from retailers, auto dealers, and others on the front lines of the economy suggest that consumption is fraying, yet not cracking, under the strains of the stock slump. Retail sales actually rose 1.1% in June, although since then they've been mixed.

Thanks to the reintroduction of 0% financing, carmakers' sales soared in July, a fact cited approvingly by Greenspan. And the housing market, buoyed by a recent plunge in mortgage rates, remains strong. "We are not seeing any indications that the consumer is pulling out of the housing market," says Stuart A. Miller, chief executive of Lennar Corp., one of the nation's largest homebuilders. "To the contrary, people are looking more favorably on the housing market [as stocks sink]."

In industries closely linked to housing, though, the market sell-off has clouded otherwise sunny skies. In a disturbing disconnect, Stanley Furniture Co. in Stanleytown, Va., has seen furniture sales slide even as the housing industry has continued to boom. "If the evening news leads off with `another bad day on Wall Street,' then that's tough," says CEO Albert L. Prillaman. "Consumers are taking advantage of low interest rates but living with some empty rooms for a while."

Some other areas of the economy that service consumers are also not faring well. Companies as diverse as airline UAL Corp. (UAL ), appliance maker Maytag, and high-end consumer electronics retailer Tweeter Home Entertainment Group Inc. (TWTR ) all reported a sudden sales slump in June, coinciding with the stock slide. Says UAL President Rono J. Dutta: "It looks like things stalled."

Call it payback for the go-go-years of the late '90s. As stock prices zoomed ahead at the end of the last decade, personal wealth soared, reaching a record high of 622% of aftertax income in the first quarter of 2000, the height of the bull market. Not surprisingly, given the pumped-up value of their portfolios, many Americans felt comfortable saving less and spending more. The savings rate, as measured by the Commerce Dept., fell all the way to 0.4% personal disposable income in September, 2000, from 6.1% in 1994, before the boom.

For a time after the stock market peaked, the relentless rise in housing prices helped cushion the blow from Wall Street as homeowners saw the value of their real estate increase. But the startling acceleration in the stock market slide in recent weeks means that's no longer the case. According to calculations by Merrill Lynch & Co. chief economist Bruce Steinberg, personal wealth as a percentage of income is now back to about 485%. That's a level not seen since the mid-1990s, before the boom. To make up for the evaporation of so much wealth, argues Goldman, Sachs & Co. Chief U.S. Economist William C. Dudley, Americans will need to raise the savings rate back up to the pre-boom levels of an average 8%, from 3% now.

Corporate America, of course, has already done a lot of housecleaning since the late '90s. Companies have slashed inventories and cut back business investment. With corporate balance sheets in better shape, the hope was that companies were now poised to sharply step up spending and hiring.

Better think again. If the stock market slide continues, corporate chieftains will remain cautious, and could think twice about boosting capital investment. That's already hitting equipment suppliers--from IBM (IBM ) to Caterpillar Inc. (CAT ) And in some cases, such as telephone equipment maker Lucent Technologies Inc. (LU ), it's even prompting a new round of layoffs, putting the economy further at risk.

That means that the dreaded double-dip recession can't be ruled out, especially if share prices fall further. Indeed, chief global economist Allen Sinai of consultants Decision Economics Inc. puts the chances of a downturn during the next 18 months as 1 in 3, even if stocks stabilize.

Unless stocks stage a major turnaround, an extended period of slow, disappointing growth looks likely. During the go-go years, Greenspan reckoned that the booming stock market boosted economic growth by one percentage point per year. Now the reverse is happening. So instead of the the 3 1/2% to 4% annual growth most economists envisage over the next 18 months, the U.S. may have to settle for something closer to 2 1/2%. It won't feel good or look particularly pretty, but it's a whole lot better than a double dip.
_________________________
By Rich Miller in Washington and Brian Grow in Atlanta, with Robert Berner and Michael Arndt in Chicago, and bureau reports



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (3400)7/29/2002 10:19:38 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
A Failure of Democracy, Not Capitalism

By BENJAMIN R. BARBER
Editorial / Op-Ed
The New York Times
July 29, 2002

Congress passed sweeping legislation to reform corporate conduct and governance last week, and President Bush has pledged to sign it. A mere two months ago, the prospects for such broad reform were grim, as Congressional Republicans and the president himself favored a more limited approach.

The new law — among other reforms, it creates an independent oversight board for the accounting industry and curbs executive abuses like sweetheart loans — may appear to be the reassertion of the public will over private interests. But it fails to address the deeper scandal: the real cause of spreading corporate malfeasance in America is a lack of faith in democratic institutions themselves.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle long insisted the scandals could be traced to a few rotten apples in an otherwise healthy barrel; a few radicals worry that the barrel itself (the capitalist system) is rotten. But business malfeasance is the consequence neither of systemic capitalist contradictions nor private sin, which are endemic to capitalism and, indeed, to humanity. It arises from a failure of the instruments of democracy, which have been weakened by three decades of market fundamentalism, privatization ideology and resentment of government.

Capitalism is not too strong; democracy is too weak. We have not grown too hubristic as producers and consumers; we have grown too timid as citizens, acquiescing to deregulation and privatization (airlines, accounting firms, banks, media conglomerates, you name it) and a growing tyranny of money over politics.

The corrosive effects of this trend are visible not only on Wall Street. The Bush administration, which favors energy production over energy conservation, has engineered a reversal of a generation of progress on environmentalism that threatens to leave the Superfund program underfunded, air-quality standards compromised and global warming unchecked. These policies can be traced directly to that proud disdain for the public realm that is common to all market fundamentalists, Republican and Democratic alike. Such attitudes represent a penchant for a go-it-alone economics that undermines the social contract and turns corporate sins into virtues of the bottom line.

Even in foreign policy, where unilateralism and the repudiation of partnerships might suggest a muscular governmental policy, there is a tendency to treat the international sector as a Hobbesian "state of nature," anarchic and disorderly, where "force and fraud are cardinal virtues" and the life of men is "nasty, brutish and short."

The United States fails to see that the international treaties it won't sign, the criminal court it will not acknowledge and the United Nations system it does not adequately support are all efforts, however compromised, at developing a new global contract to contain the chaos. The American belittlement of these efforts betrays a strategy that enhances global anarchy in the name of preserving national sovereignty. Thus the new global disorder is as incapable of constraining global crime as the deregulated domestic market is incapable of containing corporate crime.

Market fundamentalism, which defined the era of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, encourages a myth of omnipotent markets. But this is as foolish and wrong-headed as the myth of omnipotent states, which reigned from the New Deal to the Great Society. It tricks people into believing their own common power represents some bureaucrat's hegemony over them, and that buying power is the same as voting power. But consumers are not citizens, and markets cannot exercise democratic sovereignty.

The ascendant market ideology claims to free us, but it actually robs us of the civic freedom by which we control the social consequences of our private choices. We are unlikely to achieve a genuinely public and democratic plan for the World Trade Center site, for example, by polling the myriad private interests with a stake in the development of the site. Democracy is more than consumer polling. It demands the consideration not only of what individuals want (private choosing) but also of what society needs (public choosing).

The truth is that runaway capitalists, environmental know-nothings, irresponsible accountants, amoral drug runners and antimodern terrorists all flourish because we have diminished the power of the public sphere. By privatizing government functions and refusing to help create democratic institutions of global governance, America has relinquished its authority to control these forces. Within the United States, we foolishly think we possess a private liberty that allows us to work and prosper individually, not together or in conformity with a social contract. In the international realm, we seem to believe that our claim to national sovereignty allows us to operate unilaterally — America first and foremost, not together or in conformity with a global contract.

On Sept. 11, no one looked to Bill Gates or Michael Eisner, let alone Kenneth Lay or Martha Stewart, for national leadership. On that day Americans remembered the true meaning of words like citizen and public servant and relied upon firefighters, mayors, Congress and the president. Why then today do we expect corporate executives or "market professionals" to cure the disorders of anarchic market capitalism — which, as Theodore Roosevelt understood, responds only to democratic oversight? And how do we expect a go-it-alone superpower to depose terrorists who exploit the global interdependence America is reluctant to recognize?

These ends are public, the res publica that constitutes us as a common people. To secure them is the common task of every citizen — as well as the principal responsibility of the president and Congress, whose problem is not that they may have once been complicit in the vices of capitalism, but that they are today insufficiently complicit in the virtues of democracy.

___________________________________________
Benjamin R. Barber is a professor of political philosophy at the University of Maryland and the author of ‘‘Jihad vs. McWorld.’’

nytimes.com