Is China the Next Bubble?

The financial press is taking its eyes off the Google-vs.-China story long enough to pay attention to a growing worry in some quarters that the economy of the People's Republic of China could be the next bubble to burst.

Economist and former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich expressed such a concern in his January speech to The Commonwealth Club of California. In his Bank of America-Walter E. Hoadley Economic Forecast, Reich suggested that commodities and China's economy were two possible bubbles, despite the relatively good management of the Chinese economy in these turbulent times.  Watch the video excerpt below for more from Reich.



Now, two months after Reich's speech, the possibility of a burst China bubble are all over the news. We've collected some news links here for you:

ChinaStakes.com: "'Short the China Bubble' Trend Is Spreading"
National Post (Canada): "China's Financial Bubble Ready to Pop"
Business Week: "China Stocks Fall Most in Two Weeks on Rising Trade Tensions"
Business Insider: "Citi: If You Thought China Was in a Bubble, You Haven't Seen Anything Yet"
Financial Times: "Is China Blowing Bubbles?"
HargreavesLansdown (UK financial advisors): "A Bubble in China?"

Or watch our video of recent Commonwealth Club program "China: Great Power Interrupted."

Robert Reich Gives 2010 Economic Forecast

Robert Reich, former labor secretary during the Clinton administration and currently a professor at UC Berkeley, gave the Commonwealth Club's annual economic preview. The Bank of America Walter E. Hoadley Economic Forecast saw Reich speak to a sold-out crowd on January 22, discussing how far we've come since the financial crisis began, what legislation can work and what won't, and what we can expect in the coming year.

Are Positive Economic Signs Helping Ordinary Americans?

While some people point to Wells Fargo's surprisingly healthy first quarter last week (Noriel Roubini said in Time magazine last month that Wells Fargo was one of the weaker banks; what happened?) as proof the recession has bottomed out, unemployment is still 8.5 percent and likely rising. A chipper AP story reports that the first week of April had the lowest amount of new jobless claims in months. One good week in the middle of 40 may not be a great indicator, and its impact on the unemployed remains to be seen. This New York Times piece speculates that the strong Dow could be covering up significant problems in the overall economy.

This blog has quoted economist and frequent Commonwealth Club speaker Robert Reich on numerous occasions, but he, along with Paul Krugman, have consistently spoken with clarity and caution regarding the state of the economy. In a Salon article Monday, Reich again tempered the media's newfound bullishness and believes the economic perkiness is due to the massive cash infusion issued by the Treasury.

But we're not at the beginning of the end. I'm not even sure we're at the end of the beginning. All of these pieces of upbeat news are connected by one fact: the flood of money the Fed has been releasing into the economy. Of course mortgage rates are declining, mortgage originations are surging, and people and companies are borrowing more. So much money is sloshing around the economy that its price is bound to drop. And cheap money is bound to induce some borrowing. The real question is whether this means an economic turnaround. The answer is it doesn't.

The inclusion of the theory that the recent bump in the Dow is due to the printing of new money was non-existent in most news coverage. Instead, the message in nearly every major story last week, save for a very cautiously optimistic article in the Boston Globe Friday, is that the financial sector is doing well and could indirectly help the pocketbooks of struggling Americans. It's true that short- and long-term interest rates are unbelievably low, but will it translate into more construction of homes? The inventory of already built new homes is high, and recently foreclosed homes are even higher. This could be where Wells Fargo's announced $190 billion in new loan applications are emanating. Once the glut of inventory begins to deplete in relation to low interest rates, where will this segment of the economy look like?

The attitude of much of Wall Street is to keep things positive; to keep the wheels of finance rolling. But it's likely that more than a half million additional workers will get a pink slip this month. Add to this the previous 5 million, and you have quite a segment of the population scrimping and saving and not purchasing goods and services. Until Americans see their own personal economies picking up, the overall mental health of the economy will not be viewed as looking as rosy as recent news reports might be leading people to believe.

--Steven Tavares

Populist Anger Continues to Rise

Jon Stewart is a comedian, not a media critic, but he voiced America's frustration with the financial system last week when he sparred with CNBC's Jim Cramer. Robert Reich is an economist who better summed up the essence of Stewart's populist rant in a word: "helpless."

Writing in Salon.com today, the former Clinton administration cabinet secretary is a frequent speaker at the Commonwealth Club of California. Reich spoke at the Club in January, saying that the federal stimulus bill needed to be much larger than the legislation that ultimately passed ($787 billion over two years). On his blog, Reich recommends that the Obama administration quickly draft another stimulus bill of roughly the same size.

He also believes the populist streak that is becoming more fervent across the nation as instances of financial impropriety increase is hindering the confidence of the American people and rendering them helpless.

If our very own Secretary of the Treasury [Timothy Geithner] doesn't even learn of the bonuses until months after AIG has decided to pay them, and cannot make stick his decision that they should not be paid, AIG is not even accountable to the government. That means AIG's executives -- using $170 billion of our money, so far -- are accountable to no one.

The possibility of this firestorm of populism possibly engulfing the Democratic-led Congress and White House may be the impetus for a story in today's New York Times in which top White House officials fear the backlash could make future bailouts more difficult to push through Congress.

Reich also makes an interesting point regarding AIG's financial priorities if it were forced into bankruptcy last fall, instead of being propped up by the government.

Had AIG gone into Chapter 11 bankruptcy or been liquidated, as it would have without government aid, no bonuses would ever be paid (they would have had a lower priority under bankruptcy law than AIG's debts to other creditors); indeed, AIG's executives would have long ago been on the street. And any mention of the word "talent" in the same sentence as "AIG" or "credit default swaps" would be laughable if laughing weren't already so expensive.

In the meantime, Geithner and economic adviser Larry Summers, among others in the administration, continue to say there is little the government can do to stop AIG employees from keeping their portion of the $165 million pie. And New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo wants the names and job performance records of every AIG employee receiving the infamous bonuses. Whether such efforts at instilling confidence in the accountability of recipients of the bailouts works or not will likely play a big role in forming future attitudes of American citizens toward government response to the economic crisis.

--Steven Tavares

Maybe We Can Fake Our Way Through the Recession?

If economists Paul Krugman and Robert Reich are correct in their fears that the economic stimulus package recently passed by the U.S. Congress and due to be signed this week by President Obama is too small, some are suggesting another option: Bluff.
That's the idea that is discussed by neuro expert Jonah Lehrer in a recent posting in his blog.
Lehrer, who will speak on "the science of decisions" February 19 at a Commonwealth Club Inforum program, writes:

Over at the Economist, a number of economists have been speculating on the possibility of an economic "placebo" that would boost consumer confidence without actually triggering a massive spike in government spending. In other words, it would be a Keynsian bump without the cash, akin to giving someone a sugar pill and telling them it's Prozac.
...what does this mean for a potential economic placebo? The key lesson is that placebos work by manipulating our expectations: because we expect the pill to make us happier, we end up feeling happier. This suggests than any economic placebo would need to entail more than just a piddling rebate check, or some other short-term (and hopefully cheap) stimulus. The problem with these measures it that they don't alter our expectations - they just make the present a little bit less unpleasant. Instead, a genuine economic placebo would need to focus on modulating our long-term expectations, so that we become convinced that next month, or next quarter, or certainly next year, things will start getting better. The question, of course, is how the government could do this.

So even a placebo is going to cost a lot of money? I guess there's no cheap way out of this.
See Lehrer for yourself at The Commonwealth Club. And read his blog for some intelligent and often humorous applications of the "science of decisions" to our lives.

Economy Already a Hot Topic for 2010

The politics over the stimulus plan and its near-unanimous rejection by congressional Republicans is already taking center stage for the drama that will be the 2010 mid-term elections. Robert Reich wrote an interesting blog posting this week exploring the reasons why Republicans will not have a thing to do with the proposal.

Republicans don't want their fingerprints on the stimulus bill or the next bank bailout because they plan to make the midterm election of 2010 a national referendum on Barack Obama's handling of the economy. They know that by then the economy will still appear sufficiently weak that they can dub the entire Obama effort a failure -- even if the economy would have been far worse without it, even if the economy is beginning to turn around.

During two votes in the U.S. House of Representatives, no Republican backed either version of the stimulus. It took a few centrist-leaning Northeastern Republicans to win passage by a single vote in the Senate. A Reuters story yesterday implied that President Obama's rival Sen. John McCain was portraying the nascent administration as adverse to bipartisanship and characterized the plan by saying, "I think that the majority of people understand that this was generational theft." Democrats, conversely, begin to complain that the bill was too bipartisan -- even without GOP cooperation. In an interview with conservative newsweekly NewsMax, the leader of 1994's "Contract with America" Newt Gingrich said he "absolutely" sees a connection between when Republicans took over the House and 2010.

Irwin M. Stelzer imparts these talking points while writing in The Weekly Standard and illustrates this point by saying that Obama "now owns the recession." By pegging the troubled economy solely on Obama, these critics may believe that the president cannot possibly make in-roads in quite enough time for congressional elections next year.

He has asked to be judged by whether this bill and other measures he will propose create or "save" 3.5-to-4 million jobs, the number lost so far since unemployment turned up. Forget "save" -- if unemployment keeps rising, voters are not likely to rally around the slogan "It would be still worse if I hadn't spent your trillions." What the President has done is to promise what he certainly can't deliver in time for the congressional elections next year -- a reversal of job destruction, and millions of new jobs, said Stelzer.

When it's all said and done, it's still all about the economy, stupid, as Bill Clinton's campaign declared in 1992. How President Obama, congressional Democrats and the Republican opposition react to that in 2009 will be a tale we're likely to hear a lot about in 2010.

--Steven Tavares

Some Economists Fears that Stimulus Bill Is too Small

President Obama will likely sign a stimulus bill this week roughly the same size he initially offered, but wholly different in composition. Some like Robert Reich and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman never thought it was large enough in the first place, and the watered down bill is furthering their anxiety. Krugman wrote last week:

And I don’t know about you, but I’ve got a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach — a feeling that America just isn’t rising to the greatest economic challenge in 70 years. The best may not lack all conviction, but they seem alarmingly willing to settle for half-measures. And the worst are, as ever, full of passionate intensity, oblivious to the grotesque failure of their doctrine in practice.

During a speech last month at The Commonwealth Club of California, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich reiterated his belief that the stimulus bill should be over $900 billion or more over the next two years. On his blog he wrote this week:

But what if the stimulus isn't big enough? (I fear it won't be, given the large and growing gap between what the economy can produce at near full-employment and the meager demand coming from consumers and businesses.) And what if the bailout doesn't quite work? (It may not, given that the banking system is collapsing and many banks are actually insolvent.) The economy in November of 2010 may be worse than it is now, with no turnaround in sight.

Reich also predicted during his Commonwealth Club address that President Obama might bargain with Republicans to win votes in a bipartisan fashion. This indeed occurred, and the nearly across-the-board rejection by Republicans of the plan has rankled many Democrats. Joan Walsh at Salon wrote today about President Obama, "He better have learned that Washington bipartisanship is dead." Even the president's chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, admitted that working with congressional Republicans who were dead set against the bill was a mistake. Not surprisingly, the editors at the conservative National Review declared President Obama's economic plan already has a ring of "no-confidence" surrounding it.

--Steven Tavares

Is the National Review correct in its description of the state of Obama's economic plan? What do you think about economists' Reich and Krugman arguing that the stimulus is actually too small? Leave a comment and join the discussion.

Economic Forecast: An Interesting Year Ahead

Former Clinton administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich gave the annual Bank of America-Walter E. Hoadley Economic Forecast speech last month to a sold-out crowd of people curious about what's going to happen in 2009. Reich tried to allay the audience's worst fears, but he did not sugar-coat the basic message, that he believes we are in for a rough recession -- he mostly avoided the "d-word" -- but that effective action by Washington could shorten the pain.
Watch the excerpt above to see his message. And Commonwealth Club members should keep an eye out for their March magazine in a few weeks, which will feature a Reich forecast cover story, as well as some valuable looks-back at previous economic times of trials in 1980 and 1933.

Reich Sees Opportunity in the State of Nation's Economy

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich foresees the loss of another 3 million jobs and the Dow Jones “languishing” around 7,500 during the next year.

Reich cautioned members at The Commononwealth Club of California’s Bank of America-Walter E. Hoadley Annual Economic Forecast today in San Francisco that without “effective government action” the current recession will likely continue until 2010, with unemployment rising over 10 percent.

He reiterated his belief that the much-debated stimulus bill on Capitol Hill should carry a price tag of $900 billion over the next two years, which is larger than the plan put forth by President-elect Barack Obama. Reich believes the lower figures put forth by Obama may be an attempt to lure Republican support for the plan.

Reich praised Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke for taking on more responsibility during the financial decline, while deriding Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson’s Troubled Assets Recovery Program as “a miserable failure.”

Despite the ecomonic gloom, Reich attempted to cajole some hope in the current situation by noting out-of-work Amrericans and a neglected infrastructure could spark a type of national renewal.

“We have now the opportunity to make these investments or, at least, make a down payment on these investments,” said Reich, “We have the opportunity because of the gap between economic capacity and demand in the private sector from consumers and business.”

Reich also said that, because of the popularity and relative safety of Treasury bills, borrowing is cheaper than ever before. In addition, there's a mood among Americans of striving for a common political cause. “We have an opportunity to begin doing what we could not before.”

The bursting of the housing bubble, according to Reich, was not the impetus for the current state of the nation’s coffers, but ultimately revealed the underlining problems with our economy.

Reich has always laid claim to defending working class Americans and finds their plight to be indicative of the current financial situation, where consumers turned to refinancing their homes and procuring home equity loans as a way to finance their lifestyles despite stagnating wages in inflation-adjusted terms.

“Some Congressmen said Americans are living way beyond their means, but another way of looking at that was: Americans' means have not grown, and therefore the only way of continuing their spending and maintaining their living standards is to go deeper and deeper in debt,” said Reich, “When the housing bubble burst, so did that last coping mechanism.”

The ways Americans coped with maintaining their financial standing, Reich said, goes back to the 1970s when more women were forced into the labor market not because of opportunity but for maintaining their family income. Americans also worked more hours disportionate to others in the world. Reich, at one point, offered the acronym, “DINS” to describe the situation as “Double Income, No Sex.”

At various point during the program, Reich comically played on the audience’s dour deameanor by urging them to keep in mind that “now is an opportunity that we have not had in decades.”

--By Steven Tavares

Is Reich correct in his diagnosis of the economy and what needs to be done? What do you think will happen to the economy in 2009? Post a comment and share your opinion.

Reich's Assessment of the Economy Has Been Spot On

"2009 is likely to be a very hard year."

Robert Reich could have easily uttered this sentence within the last week. Instead, he used those words to describe the prospects for the economy during a September 2008 speech at The Commonwealth Club.

Of course, any cynic or chronic pessimist could have seen the worsening of the economy persisting into this year or longer, but the former labor secretary under President Clinton and current professor at Cal has been one of the few sounding the alarms over the economy for some time.

His assessment of the then-pending $700 billion bailout to Wall Street sounds dead on today. “The bailout will not ultimately do much," said Reich, "It will provide a one-shot shot of confidence. It will stop the bleeding, but it will not end the underlying problem.”

Indeed, today, many wonder what the initial half of the bailout money went toward. Without reliable accounting of the dollars, some wonder whether financial institutions are hoarding the relief money while credit markets still languish. Reich pointed out that the financial dilemma the country faces is actually a "crisis of trust" and, though the bailout in September was a message to investors that the government is willing to do something big to alleviate the problems, it will not fix the long-term problems with the economy without substantial oversight and a strong monetary policy.

He did focus on one interesting unintended consequence of the bailout: a resumption of avarice. “You take greed away from Wall Street and what you have is pavement,” he said to a round of guffaws.

Reich says corporate leaders and their earning are predicated on the short term. In this situation -- where the government has, in effect, subsidized the down side to investing -- he says the "risk is greater" that corporations will continue to dabble in seizing the quick buck.

Today, as President-elect Barack Obama attempts to push another large round of stimulus benefits through Congress, Reich's 2008 words are useful; he urged listeners not to view the next president's capacity to apply his agenda in Washington as being depressed.

Reich recounted how during the beginning of Clinton's term in 1993, the discovery of larger deficits forced the new president to pare back some of his campaign promises. Don't necessarily believe it this time around, said Reich, because the September bailout is technically not an expenditure. The money will be borrowed from Asian and Middle Eastern countries, he said, which are more than happy to invest in relatively safe Treasury bills, something that has indeed occurred.

Because many in the Obama administration believe expanding the deficit to stoke the poor economy falls in line with the Keynesian mantra of infrastructure spending, balancing the budget is far from the most important policy objective and should allow the incoming president to hold his campaign promises intact.

Robert Reich will try his hand again at making sense of the economy while peering into the future this Wednesday at The Commonwealth Club of California's Annual Bank of America-Walter E. Hoadley Economic Forecast. The event will be held at the Hotel Nikko at 222 Mason St. with lunch at 11:45 a.m. and the program starting at 12:30 p.m.

Obama's Recovery Plan Moves to the Center

Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says he has no qualms with President-elect Barack Obama's stimulus plan – and that could be a problem in itself.

After eight years of tax cuts under President Bush, some Democrats – especially Northeastern liberals like Sen. John Kerry and Rep. Barney Frank – think that giving tax breaks to businesses and middle-class families will not create long-term job growth. Scott Lehigh, writing in the Boston Globe's op-ed page, thinks tax cuts make little sense and wonders whether they exist in Obama's plan as a carrot to Republicans.

Democrats are also leery about heaping more debt on the books. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the deficit will reach $1.2 trillion in 2009, not including Obama's stimulus plan. Some in Washington also believe the total stimulus price tag will ultimately reach closer to $1 trillion. Obama's preliminary estimate is around $775 billion.

With 11 days until inauguration day, Obama, like President Franklin D. Roosevelt 76 years ago, will be afforded a brief honeymoon period in Washington and this is the impetus for the presidential feel of yesterday's speech at George Mason University.

Former labor secretary under President Clinton, Robert Reich, believes the government stimulus should reach upwards of $900 billion spread over two years and urges for it to be done quickly. "Without federal action, next year could be even worse," Reich told congressmen at a forum discussing the stimulus bill in Washington.

Reich will discuss the economic prospects of the country at The Commonwealth Club of California next Wednesday when he gives a special forecast for the economy in 2009.

On his blog, Reich urges Congress to spend without caution of overextending itself.

As the buyer of last resort, the federal government must respond if that cycle is to be reversed. In my judgment, this will require a stimulus of about 6 and a half percent of gross domestic product, or a total of some $900 billion, spread over two years. That’s my estimate for the shortfall in private demand. But the federal government should stand ready to spend larger sums if necessary to get the economy back on track toward full capacity. The danger is not that the government will do too much; the danger is that it will do too little, too late.

Reich agrees with Obama's plan to upgrade the nation's infrastructure as does Paul Krugman, but some disagree with the basic Keynesian approach. Larry Kudlow at the National Review mocks Obama's progressive pedigree by saying his stimulus plan is somewhat Reaganesque. "Nobody really believes infrastructure spending will end the recession or create permanent new jobs. However, it’s interesting just how much the Obama plan has changed since the election," he wrote.

Here lies the problem facing Washington: in the shadow of a clumsily rolled out $700 billion bailout for the financial sector where many do not know where the money went and fewer gained any stimulus from the investment, how will what many people see as a chronically ineffective legislative branch deal decisively with the economy? Obama wants a bill ready to sign from Congress by Feb. 13. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is already pushing to extend the deadline. Meanwhile, unemployment reaches 7.2 percent and the prospect of this year being somewhat better than the last decreases.

Financial Crisis: The Who, What, When, Where and Why

As of this writing, the Dow Jones is down 306 points, just two days after European governments super-charged the world's markets by laying out aggressive programs to deal with the frozen credit markets. The United States also announced a program to deal with the crisis, but markets have been weak-to-faltering even as the newspaper headlines start to sound optimistic for the first time in weeks.

What is happening? What will happen next?

Much of the problem stems from the easy credit and large amounts of money lenders were pushing into the housing market for many years. And though some critics have put blame on the people who bought subprime loans and other insufficiently securitized financing, "the people who should have know what they were doing was people who had experience lending money," said former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich in a Commonwealth Club speech October 1, 2008 (see the embedded video above for his complete speech). "I think they did know what they were doing."

Perhaps they didn't. In the same speech, Reich said that he spoke with Wall Street financiers about the various financial instruments they were using to repackage bulk loans and sell them to investors. "Two years ago I asked a hedge fund manager, 'Please explain to me what's in your hedge fund,'" said Reich. He said the fund manager laughed and replied, "I have no idea."

"Thanks to high technology, you could slice and dice these [financial] packages into your appetite of risks," Steve Forbes told The Commonwealth Club on August 7, 2008. "You could have packages of sub-prime mortgages; you could own a piece of it that may be worth today 80, 90 cents on the dollar. you could own another piece that is zero cents on the dollar. Lots of institutions didn't even really realize how much of this junk they had until the crisis hit."

That, say experts, has led to the frozen credit markets, where banks are unwilling to lend to other banks because they literally don't know if the other bank's liabilities in bad loans are frighteningly awful or just frightening. Therefore, we've seen governments stepping in to provide liquidity for banks and trying to provide the confidence banks need to make the loans.

Where this will all lead is not clear, though even the optimistic predictions of many economists is that the United States is in for a serious recession lasting one or two years. That has people and businesses battening down the hatches and preparing for a tough time.

"The consensus among mainstream economists is if – if – we can avoid a meltdown, this is likely to be an extended but comparatively shallow recession," said Peter Gosselin, a financial journalist who spoke on a Commonwealth Club Inforum panel on "Surviving the Great Recession." He added that even a "shallow" recession can be very serious. That panel discussion was in July, but even then Gosselin said the country was likely to hit a crisis soon. Events would soon prove him correct.

ADDENDUM: The Dow Jones closed down about 733 points.