The next Recession!

Gaudion M said:
As a bit of an armchair economist I have been seeing signs of an impending recession for a couple of years, but we and the rest of the world seem to be bouncing along pretty well, jobs numbers are very high globbaly and therefore GDP growth is tracking moderatley upward in most countries.

But you look at the more subtle financial indicators and they are all showing some pretty alarming trends. Interest rates are low yet investment returns are also low, Banks can't make money in that environment - when they cant make money they tend to reign things in as the returns are not worth the risk. Barclays have just anounced an 80% drop in profits. The chairman saying:-

We acknowledge that the outlook for next year is unquestionably more challenging now than it appeared a year ago, in particular given the uncertainty around the UK economy and the interest rate environment,”.

If you subscribe to the idea that these things always move in cycles then we had the dot com crash of 2000/2001, the credit crunch of 2007/8/9 (although you could argue that went on for 5 years or more) and we are now circa 10 years beyond that. Next year could well be tough.
Click to expand...
cheer up, it might never happen
 
Question is how do they respond to the next recession? With interest rates already so low, what else is in the arsenal to combat it?
 
Millwallawayveteran1988 said:
I think the difference between recessions in the past and now is that central banks will do almost anything to help the economy. Negative interest rates, more QE etc. I think if we get one, then it is likely to be short lived (I’m talking global rather than just U.K.)
Click to expand...
As an actual economist, I can tell you the issue there is that most central banks do not actually have much room for intervention as they have had in the past. Interest rates, as a baseline prior to previous recessions, are already very low, meaning lowering them further will likely have very little impact on the financial markets. And extensive QE, especially in the current climate which would persist after any such degradation, would likely actually intensify the problem: various trade wars, mostly started by the US, higher indebtedness across the board than prior to previous recessions, savings rates very low (in some countries record low), county/provincial/state budgets operating on extremely fine margins in most developed nations (with their emergency/surplus funds having already been drained in the past decade), faltering growth economies like China, Brexit uncertainty (as well as other political volatility), and climate disasters further stretching the resources of many nations (a problem which will only likely get worse). The last thing you want to do is flood the markets with every holder of value currency *and* potentially devalue every long-term government investment vehicle available (their value *should* go up in that scenario, but they’ll be seen as risky, as each nation’s fiscal state will be even worse than prior to the last recession).

It is one of the main reasons most central banks have been reluctant to lower interest rates over the past year, even in the face of mounting evidence of a world economic downturn. I have been harping on about this for nearly 2 years (at times on here) and generally get skeptical responses, except from middle-to-low revenue business owners currently seeing revenues falling (especially those that produce luxury goods, as they are usually the first to feel the pinch and are rightly used as a canary in the coal mine) and those working two or three jobs to stay afloat (many participating in the much lauded “gig economy”, which is really just a sham front for externalising costs from profitable enterprises to the embattled “independent contractor”). The biggest mistake anyone can make right now is to take the whim of the stock markets as indication of how the economy is doing. All that reliably tells you is how well those that will likely be able to ride out any such downturn without much trouble are doing. Not that I thought you were doing that, but I just find so many believe the stock markets represent the overall world economy, which could not be further from the truth, especially in the last 30 years, when valuations have massively diverged from the revenue assessment model (which is also one of the drivers of our current predicament — the investment world has gone absolutely mad).

All of this is to say: the next downturn will likely not be a “recession.”
 
SebastianBlue said:
As an actual economist, I can tell you the issue there is that most central banks do not actually have much room for intervention as they have had in the past. Interest rates, as a baseline prior to previous recessions, are already very low, meaning lowering them further will likely have very little impact on the financial markets. And extensive QE, especially in the current climate which would persist after any such degradation, would likely actually intensify the problem: various trade wars, mostly started by the US, higher indebtedness across the board than prior to previous recessions, savings rates very low (in some countries record low), county/provincial/state budgets operating on extremely fine margins in most developed nations (with their emergency/surplus funds having already been drained in the past decade), faltering growth economies like China, Brexit uncertainty (as well as other political volatility), and climate disasters further stretching the resources of many nations (a problem which will only likely get worse). The last thing you want to do is flood the markets with every holder of value currency *and* potentially devalue every long-term government investment vehicle available (their value *should* go up in that scenario, but they’ll be seen as risky, as each nation’s fiscal state will be even worse than prior to the last recession).

It is one of the main reasons most central banks have been reluctant to lower interest rates over the past year, even in the face of mounting evidence of a world economic downturn. I have been harping on about this for nearly 2 years (at times on here) and generally get skeptical responses, except from middle-to-low revenue business owners currently seeing revenues falling (especially those that produce luxury goods, as they are usually the first to feel the pinch and are rightly used as a canary in the coal mine) and those working two or three jobs to stay afloat (many participating in the much lauded “gig economy”, which is really just a sham front for externalising costs from profitable enterprises to the embattled “independent contractor”). The biggest mistake anyone can make right now is to take the whim of the stock markets as indication of how the economy is doing. All that reliably tells you is how well those that will likely be able to ride out any such downturn without much trouble are doing. Not that I thought you were doing that, but I just find so many believe the stock markets represent the overall world economy, which could not be further from the truth, especially in the last 30 years, when valuations have massively diverged from the revenue assessment model (which is also one of the drivers of our current predicament — the investment world has gone absolutely mad).

All of this is to say: the next downturn will likely not be a “recession.”
Click to expand...
 
SebastianBlue said:
As an actual economist, I can tell you the issue there is that most central banks do not actually have much room for intervention as they have had in the past. Interest rates, as a baseline prior to previous recessions, are already very low, meaning lowering them further will likely have very little impact on the financial markets. And extensive QE, especially in the current climate which would persist after any such degradation, would likely actually intensify the problem: various trade wars, mostly started by the US, higher indebtedness across the board than prior to previous recessions, savings rates very low (in some countries record low), county/provincial/state budgets operating on extremely fine margins in most developed nations (with their emergency/surplus funds having already been drained in the past decade), faltering growth economies like China, Brexit uncertainty (as well as other political volatility), and climate disasters further stretching the resources of many nations (a problem which will only likely get worse). The last thing you want to do is flood the markets with every holder of value currency *and* potentially devalue every long-term government investment vehicle available (their value *should* go up in that scenario, but they’ll be seen as risky, as each nation’s fiscal state will be even worse than prior to the last recession).

It is one of the main reasons most central banks have been reluctant to lower interest rates over the past year, even in the face of mounting evidence of a world economic downturn. I have been harping on about this for nearly 2 years (at times on here) and generally get skeptical responses, except from middle-to-low revenue business owners currently seeing revenues falling (especially those that produce luxury goods, as they are usually the first to feel the pinch and are rightly used as a canary in the coal mine) and those working two or three jobs to stay afloat (many participating in the much lauded “gig economy”, which is really just a sham front for externalising costs from profitable enterprises to the embattled “independent contractor”). The biggest mistake anyone can make right now is to take the whim of the stock markets as indication of how the economy is doing. All that reliably tells you is how well those that will likely be able to ride out any such downturn without much trouble are doing. Not that I thought you were doing that, but I just find so many believe the stock markets represent the overall world economy, which could not be further from the truth, especially in the last 30 years, when valuations have massively diverged from the revenue assessment model (which is also one of the drivers of our current predicament — the investment world has gone absolutely mad).

All of this is to say: the next downturn will likely not be a “recession.”
Click to expand...
thanks for that, good stuff
 
SebastianBlue said:
As an actual economist, I can tell you the issue there is that most central banks do not actually have much room for intervention as they have had in the past. Interest rates, as a baseline prior to previous recessions, are already very low, meaning lowering them further will likely have very little impact on the financial markets. And extensive QE, especially in the current climate which would persist after any such degradation, would likely actually intensify the problem: various trade wars, mostly started by the US, higher indebtedness across the board than prior to previous recessions, savings rates very low (in some countries record low), county/provincial/state budgets operating on extremely fine margins in most developed nations (with their emergency/surplus funds having already been drained in the past decade), faltering growth economies like China, Brexit uncertainty (as well as other political volatility), and climate disasters further stretching the resources of many nations (a problem which will only likely get worse). The last thing you want to do is flood the markets with every holder of value currency *and* potentially devalue every long-term government investment vehicle available (their value *should* go up in that scenario, but they’ll be seen as risky, as each nation’s fiscal state will be even worse than prior to the last recession).

It is one of the main reasons most central banks have been reluctant to lower interest rates over the past year, even in the face of mounting evidence of a world economic downturn. I have been harping on about this for nearly 2 years (at times on here) and generally get skeptical responses, except from middle-to-low revenue business owners currently seeing revenues falling (especially those that produce luxury goods, as they are usually the first to feel the pinch and are rightly used as a canary in the coal mine) and those working two or three jobs to stay afloat (many participating in the much lauded “gig economy”, which is really just a sham front for externalising costs from profitable enterprises to the embattled “independent contractor”). The biggest mistake anyone can make right now is to take the whim of the stock markets as indication of how the economy is doing. All that reliably tells you is how well those that will likely be able to ride out any such downturn without much trouble are doing. Not that I thought you were doing that, but I just find so many believe the stock markets represent the overall world economy, which could not be further from the truth, especially in the last 30 years, when valuations have massively diverged from the revenue assessment model (which is also one of the drivers of our current predicament — the investment world has gone absolutely mad).

All of this is to say: the next downturn will likely not be a “recession.”
Click to expand...

Interesting. Re the last line

the next downturn will likely not be a “recession.

Are you saying there could be a big asset price correction that does not lead to a drop in GDP and therefore not a technical recession. I can see that but then if asset prices drop those assets feed the calculation of GDP and their is a knock on.
 
Might not be in " a text-book recession", but for those whose income has been frozen for more than ten years, 60% of the workforce at the last count (to the great delight of rt-wingers, of course). Recession is just a word thrown into arguments to prove a point, means fuck-all to the public, all they know is that they get less to pay for more. Apparently though the EU is in a far worse state, and now it's them that is "the sick man of europe, in fact the walking dead!!!" Not sure about that myself, but some BM posters are, in between liking each others diatribes and making stuff up, and lauding their "new" messiah, it's one of their favourite """"FACTS"""", ffs, not forgetting finding new ways to be victims, and stepping on their bottom lips and littering the place with ejected toys. ....
 
Gaudion M said:
Interesting. Re the last line

the next downturn will likely not be a “recession.

Are you saying there could be a big asset price correction that does not lead to a drop in GDP and therefore not a technical recession. I can see that but then if asset prices drop those assets feed the calculation of GDP and their is a knock on.
Click to expand...
I was alluding to the next (recognised) sustained downturn being much worse than the contemporary held loose definition of a “recession.”

But I try not to use the word(s) that describe that dire economic state. I am not superstitious, mind... but I am a little stitious.
 
SWP's back said:
sir baconface said:
We could perhaps consider sacrificing a goat.
Click to expand...
Yeah the goat thing is always the second option as per Keynes if interest rates are already low.
Click to expand...
Man walking along a road in the countryside comes across a goatherd and his goats. Tells the goatherder, "I will bet you £50 against one of your goats that I can tell you the exact number in this herd." The goatherd thinks it over; it's a big herd so he takes the bet. "973," proclaims the man. The goatherder is astonished, because that is exactly right. Says "OK, I'm a man of my word, take an animal." Man picks one up and begins to walk away.

"Wait," cries the goatherd, "Let me have a chance to get even. Double or nothing that I can guess your exact occupation." Man says sure. Goatherd shouts "you are an economist for the government!" "Amazing!" responds the man, "you are exactly right!”

“But tell me, how did you deduce that?"

"Well," says the goatherder, "put down my dog and I will tell you."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top