Altes Elliott-Wellen-Forum - Is the Recession Over? / Artikel, engl.

JÃœKÃœ

15.03.2002, 18:32

Is the Recession Over? / Artikel, engl.

Thread gesperrt

<div>
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=912
</div>

<div>
Is the Recession Over?
</div>

by William Anderson

[Posted March 15, 2002]

New
York Times was pointing out that if the recession is over, Democrats
will have fewer avenues by which to attack Bush in the 2002 elections.

While I, too, hope this recession is over, I am not as
confident as a Republican pollster or a Times reporter. The policies the
Fed cooked up during the mid-1990s that brought on the unsustainable boom (mistakenly
called the"New Economy") are also the policies that Greenspan
employed in the last year, ostensibly to give us a"soft landing." The
government is now engaged in a number of foolish regulatory ventures that
certainly will make economic life more difficult as we seek to climb out of this
latest downturn.

Some history is in order here. In 1980, right during the heat
of the U.S. presidential election between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, the
economy was undergoing a relatively mild inflationary recession. (Inflation was
in double digits, while the unemployment rate was about 6-7 percent.) By the end
of that year, and early into 1981, the economy staged what can best be termed as
a mini-recovery.

By the fall of 1981, however, the U.S. economy really was
going into the tank. Political support for Reagan began to dry up, as the
press--and the Democrats--mockingly called the president?s economic policies
"Reaganomics." The brief"Reagan Rally" in the stock market
had turned into a bear market, and by mid-1982, the press had already written
Reagan?s political obituary.

[img]" alt="[image]" style="margin: 5px 0px 5px 0px" /> 

In fact, the real recovery did not begin until the latter
stages of 1982, but it became strong enough by 1984 that Reagan won reelection
in a huge landslide. The economic boom that began in 1982 would last about eight
years before the next recession sank George Bush?s presidency.

Will the present recovery run out of steam, or is it a
precursor to the next boom (or, should we say, unsustainable boom)? No one can
answer that question right now, and that includes all of the"experts"
who are armed with the latest econometric models. We can say for certain,
however, that the policies of Greenspan?s Federal Reserve System in the past
year have paved the way for a mini-boom, but also another bust.

At last report, the Fed had cut its key lending rate to less
than 2 percent in hopes of stimulating large amounts of business borrowing. At
the same time, Bush was urging Americans to spend their last dollar in order to
prop up retailers during the Christmas season. There is something ominous in
both counts.

First, low interest rates, and especially those that are
artificially low, as is the case here, not only stimulate borrowing that would
not have occurred otherwise, but also depress savings rates.

Second, with depressed savings rates also comes less money
that can be made available for future capital formation. As Murray Rothbard has
noted, capital formation that is appropriate to a particular economy can come
about only through saving, not through the Fed?s gyrations.

[img][/img] 

The pertinent question, then, is this: How much"malinvestment"
has the Fed brought into our current economy through its attempts to
artificially lower interest rates? If this"recovery" is based upon
those malinvestments, it will not be long before they must be liquidated.

On the other hand, if business borrowing was not artificially
stimulated even when the Fed did its interest rate magic (accompanied, of course,
by aggressive open market operations), then the current recovery could be a long,
sustained one.

While I like to think of myself as an optimist, I think we
need to be cautious before Greenspan and Bush declare victory. For one, much of
the current economic growth seems to be tied to war spending, which is increasing
at record rates, along with the growth of government at all levels in the
wake of the September 11 destruction.

Although socialists and Keynesians might believe that
capitalism can only flourish in the presence of international conflict,
Austrians have a more sound take on the whole matter: war is always economically
destructive, both on the countries where war is waged and on the country that
wages it.

The carnage that U.S. Armed Forces have inflicted upon
Afghanistan goes without saying. However, we also need to remember that war
spending is done by"crowding out" private investment. Furthermore,
war invites more government controls that come back to haunt people after the
conflict has ended.

Of course, the regulatory monster has hardly stopped to burp
in the last few years. One of the quieter--and sadder--legacies of the last boom
was that both political parties rushed to impose even more regulations upon the
economy. Since regulations are implemented over time, it is often difficult to
gauge their effectiveness during those first few years.

For example, the real force of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 was not felt until the spring of 2000, when new gasoline reformulation
regulations kicked in and wreaked havoc across the country, sending gasoline
prices through the roof.

The California electricity debacle, along with the implosion
of Enron and Global Crossing, is in the process of bringing a new wave of
regulation, both in electricity and financial markets. This certainly bodes no
good thing for long-term recovery.

Please understand that I am not predicting another recession
to occur next month or even next year. We need to remember, however, that
between the Fed?s interference with the natural rate of interest and the
desire of politicians to load the economy with even more regulation, someone
must bear the cost.

Just as we have learned once again that the"New
Economy" is not recession proof, we are also going to learn that the old
rules of free markets still apply: if government interferes with the ability of
people to freely engage in exchange and production, sooner or later, the economy
as a whole will feel the punch.


<div>
<hr align="left" width="33%" SIZE="1">
</div>

<div>
William Anderson, an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, teaches economics
at Frostburg State University. Send him MAIL.
See his Mises.org Articles
Archive.
</div>


<center>

<HR>

</center>