Global Saving Glut: Thoughts on Savings, Part II
Mike Shedlock refutes Ben Bernanke’s notions of a Global Saving Glut and looks at the consumer side of savings, among other things.
In a self-serving answer, $Ben proposes:
“My answers will be somewhat unconventional in that I will take issue with the common view that the recent deterioration in the U.S. current account primarily reflects economic policies and other economic developments within the United States itself…To be more specific, I will argue that over the past decade, a combination of diverse forces has created a significant increase in the global supply of saving — a global saving glut — which helps to explain both the increase in the U.S. current account deficit and the relatively low level of long-term real interest rates in the world today…
“Some of the key reasons for the large U.S. current account deficit are external to the United States, implying that purely inward-looking policies are unlikely to resolve this issue. Thus, a more direct approach is to help and encourage developing countries to re-enter international capital markets in their more natural role as borrowers, rather than as lenders.”
$Ben concludes with:
“We probably have little choice except to be patient as we work to create the conditions in which a greater share of global saving can be redirected away from the United States and toward the rest of the world — particularly the developing nations.”
The answer to our dilemma is not for the United States, which has a negative savings rate, consumes 25% of the world’s oil supply, and goes deeper in hock every day, to start consuming less, but for the rest of the world to start consuming more.
If deficit spending were the answer, I am sure that many countries in Africa should by now be the most prosperous nations on Earth. Besides, someone please tell me exactly what the United States makes that anyone wants to buy. About the only thing I can figure out that we make that anyone wants is weapons. Yep, we make the world’s best. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), we will not sell those to China or many other countries. Instead, China will end up buying weapons from France or Russia. Our agricultural exports depend on subsidies, and GM and Ford cars are a joke compared to cars from Japan and now South Korea. Besides, most of the parts and components in our autos are not “made” in the United States anyway. For the most part, all we do is assemble stuff here. If I am not mistaken, weapons really are made here.
No, $Ben, the problem is NOT a global savings glut, but a gutted U.S. manufacturing base, bloated auto industries, refusal to sell the only really good products we make (weapons), and consumers willing to buy million-dollar homes at 0% down ultimately financed by someone from Japan or China.
“In a field one summer’s day, a Grasshopper was hopping about, chirping and singing to its heart’s content. An Ant passed by, bearing along with great toil an ear of corn he was taking to the nest.
“‘Why not come and chat with me,’ said the Grasshopper, ‘instead of working so hard?’
“‘I am helping to lay up food for the winter,’ said the Ant, ‘and recommend you to do the same.”
“‘Why bother about winter?’ said the Grasshopper; ‘We have plenty of food right now.’
“But the Ant went on its way and continued its work.
“When the winter came, the Grasshopper had no food and found itself dying of hunger, while it saw the ants distributing, every day, corn from the stores they had collected in the summer.
“Then the Grasshopper knew:
In 2003, it was $984 billion.
In 2004, it was $800 billion.
In 2005, the House has passed an increase of another $781 billion, on which the Senate has yet to act.
Total that up and you get a stunning $3,015 billion ($3.015 trillion) in additional debt in just four years. Not only do we have a negative personal savings rate, but we also have Republicans spending like drunken fools, over $3 trillion added to the national debt in a mere four years, a sitting president who has not vetoed any spending bill (or any other bill for that matter during his entire term), and $Ben Bernanke suggesting that the problem is not with the United States but rather that the rest of the world is saving too much! That brilliant thinking is coming from the man who is the leading candidate to replace Greenspan as our next Fed chairman.
David S. Broder discusses the growing national debt and more in a Washington Post article entitled “A Price to Be Paid for Folly.” Here is a snip:
“Now those pre-Katrina estimates have been rendered even more ridiculous. In the first 10 days since the storm hit, the president asked Congress for emergency appropriations of $62 billion — and the bills are just starting to come in…
“Treasury Secretary John Snow reportedly told congressional Republicans in a closed meeting that Katrina strengthens the case for making the Bush tax cuts permanent…
“The warning signs of impending economic calamity are every bit as evident as the forecasts of ruin for New Orleans when a major hurricane hit.
“The runaway budget deficits are compounded by the persistent and growing imbalance in our trade accounts — jeopardizing the inflow of foreign funds we have used to finance our debt.
“At a private dinner the other evening where many of the men and women who have steered economic and fiscal policy during the past two decades were expressing their alarm about this situation, one speaker summarized the feelings of the group:
“‘I think it’s 1925,’ he said, ‘and we’re headed for 1929.'”
“An analysis of the uses of cash flow indicates that even the most minimal investment, residential construction, debt repayment, and consumer liquidity requirements will lead to new borrowings totaling about 11-12% of GDP.
“A scenario analysis of these financing requirements did not indicate any obvious short-term way to reduce this level of debt financing without effecting economic activity. The scenario analyses indicate that reductions in consumer liquidity would be the only reasonable path by which the economy could begin adjusting these financing needs.
“It is not clear that even reducing consumer liquidity would be sufficient to support the process of slowing debt accumulation. It appears more likely that any attempt to reduce the growth of debt could result in an underperforming economy.
“The scenario analysis left open a tantalizing opportunity to manage the transition to a stable economy with lower annual debt financing. The rate of growth of personal consumption expenditures would need to decline significantly while the rate of growth of personal income stayed near its current level.
“The only way that we can envision this would be a managed deflation transferring corporate profits to households through price reductions on goods and services. Though this would lower profits appreciably, it would also enable the economy to cut household debt financing needs to reasonable levels.
“Other than our tantalizing possibility, we were unable to identify any reasonable path of reducing the growth of household debt. The sources and uses of cash flow indicate that households are completely dependent on access to new debt.”
Thanks, Stephen, for an excellent chart and commentary. Given that one cannot perpetually refinance one’s house to support consumption, something clearly has to give. What has to give actually is the U.S. standard of living. Regardless of what anyone might think, we simply cannot sustain ourselves by borrowing to support consumption based on the concept of ever-rising home prices. Somehow, Wall Street has not caught on to this simple concept, or if it has, it just wants one hell of a last party before things crash.
Mike Shedlock ~ “Mish”
September 14, 2005