I hated the speech.
It seems evident to me that the current economic crisis is largely the almost inevitable consequence of an over-levered economy. By historical standards, our economy is *still* massively over-leveraged.
To look at the data, from 1952 until 1980 Total Credit Market Debt as a % of GDP hovered around 150%. By 1997 it stood at 250% with about half that increase during RR's second term. From 1998 till 2008 it grew at a remarkably consistent ~.9%/quarter clip. When 2008 started it stood at 355%, more then double the more sustainable 1979 total. The Q4 2008 number is not posted, but through Q3 2008, it was up negligibly on the year.
When you look at those numbers what you see is, in effect, a fixed income ponzi scheme, where credit is over-extended and so ever-loosing credit is perpetually required to prevent the bubble from bursting.
There is certainly some argument that with the new fangled computerized and quantified economy that we have, can sustainably handle more debt/gdp then the 150% they had in 1952-1979. As we were reasonably stable around 250% through the HW Bush's presidency and Clinton's first term, I can believe that the number is in that ballpark.
In other words, what is called for is not "getting credit flowing again." On the contrary. Arguing that loosening credit is the way out of our problems is akin to prescribing binge drinking to a person suffering from liver disease. Obama's ode to flowing credit last night was then, to my mind, distateful and irresponsible.
In contrast to the President, the First Lady shined. She was wonderful. Her expression when hugging the "we aren't quitters" high school student was so warm and proud and empathetic. It, she, was beautiful.
No comments:
Post a Comment