Economic Crisis – Page 22 – artdiamondblog.com

“Silicon Valley’s Economy is Sputtering”

“An unoccupied office building in San Jose, Calif., in December. Many tech firms are hiring engineers abroad to do their work.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. B3) SAN FRANCISCO — Silicon Valley’s economy is sputtering and risks permanently stalling, according to an annual report by a group of researchers in the region.

Part of the toll on Silicon Valley has resulted from the recession. The region, the center of the global technology industry, lost 90,000 jobs from the second quarter of 2008 to the second quarter of 2009. Unemployment is higher than national levels and the worst in the region since 2005, when technology companies were still recovering from the dot-com implosion.
The drop in the number of midlevel jobs — the engineers who drive much of the Valley’s growth — has been sharpest. And when companies do hire, they are cautiously hiring independent contractors instead of regular employees, and are hiring abroad, according to the “2010 Index of Silicon Valley” report, which was produced by the Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network and the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, two local nonprofit groups.
Other economic indicators are also gloomy, the report found.
“We show no evidence that the recovery has arrived,” said Russell Hancock, chief executive of Joint Venture.

For the full story, see:
CLAIRE CAIN MILLER. “Report Warns Silicon Valley Could Lose Its Edge.” The New York Times (Thurs., February 11, 2010): B3.
Note: The online version of the article is dated February 10, 2010, and has the title “Report Warns Silicon Valley Could Lose Its Edge.”)

Chamber’s Donohue Promotes Free Enterprise

Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohoe. Source of caricature: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A13) The White House’s war on the Chamber has come just as the group is launching a new $100 million campaign promoting free enterprise.

“We want to encourage and promote and educate and get a bunch of enthusiasm behind . . . the free enterprise system with free capital markets and free trade and the ability to fail and fall right on your ass and get up and do it again!” he says.
The belief in that system, Mr. Donohue says, has been eroded by the recession and subsequent criticism of the free market. “The purpose of this is to get out of the doldrums! Quit sulking and worrying.” He hopes the campaign will remind Americans that “We created 20 million jobs in the ’90s, we can do it again. We don’t have to do it exactly like that–Adam Smith didn’t have a BlackBerry–but we ought to pay attention to what made it work.”

For the full interview, see:
KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL. “OPINION: THE WEEKEND INTERVIEW with Tom Donohue; Business Fights Back; His organization under attack by the White House, the president of the Chamber of Commerce stands by his defense of free enterprise.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., October 24, 2009): A13.
(Note: the online version of the article has the date October 23, 2009.)
(Note: ellipsis in original.)

Dubai’s Economic Future Depends on Its Institutions

“A man took in the view of Dubai from the 124th floor of the newly opened, $1.5 billion Burj Khalifa, a rocket-shaped building that soars 2,717 feet.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. A7) CAIRO — In the heady days of the Dubai gold rush, when real estate sold and resold even before a shovel hit the ground, the ambitious emirate was hailed as the model of Middle Eastern modernity, a boomtown that built an effective, efficient and accessible form of government.

Then the crash came and revealed how paper-thin that image was, political and financial analysts said. That realization, not just in Dubai but also in Abu Dhabi, the oil-rich capital of the United Arab Emirates, has cast a harsh light on an opaque, top-down decision-making process, not just in business but in matters of crime and punishment as well, political and financial analysts said.
The financial crisis and now two criminal cases that have generated critical headlines in other countries have demonstrated that the emirates remain an absolute monarchy, where institutions are far less important than royalty and where the law is particularly capricious — applied differently based on social standing, religion and nationality, political experts and human rights advocates said.
“I think what we learned here the last four months is that the government, at least on a political level, is still very undeveloped,” said a financial analyst based in Dubai who asked not to be identified to avoid compromising his ability to work in the emirates. “It’s very difficult to read or interpret or understand what is going on. The institutions have not shaped up to people’s expectations.”

For the full story, see:
MICHAEL SLACKMAN. “Dubai Memo; Entrenched Monarchy Thwarts Aspirations for Modernity.” The New York Times (Fri., January 22, 2010): A7.
(Note: the online version of the article is dated January 21, 2010.)
(Note: ellipsis added.)

“Workers repaired a phone line next to an office building in Dubai’s Internet City. Even after a bailout, Dubai remains heavily burdened by debt.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited above.

Chinese Subsidies Create Unprofitable Overcapacity and Risk of Crisis

(p. 5) . . . subsidies, . . . , have spurred excess capacity and created a dangerous political dynamic in which these investments have to be propped up at all cost.

China has been building factories and production capacity in virtually every sector of its economy, but it’s not clear that the latest round of investments will be profitable anytime soon. Automobiles, steel, semiconductors, cement, aluminum and real estate all show signs of too much capacity. In Shanghai, the central business district appears to have high vacancy rates, yet building continues.
. . .
Over all, there is a lack of transparency. China’s statistics on its gross domestic product are based more on recorded production activity than on what is actually sold. Chinese fiscal and credit policies are geared toward jobs and political stability, and thus the authorities shy away from revealing which projects are most troubled or should be canceled.
Put all of this together and there is a very real possibility of trouble.

For the full commentary, see:
TYLER COWEN. “Economic View; Dangers of an Overheated China.” The New York Times, SundayBusiness Section (Sun., November 29, 2009 ): 5.
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date November 28, 2009.)
(Note: ellipsis added.)

Socialist Chavez’s Thugs Destroy Venezuelans’ Economic Freedom

“A member of the National Guard stands guard during a inspection of prices at a store in La Guaira outside Caracas Jan. 12.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A8) CARACAS — President Hugo Chávez’s decision to devalue Venezuela’s currency in order to shore up government finances could backfire on the populist leader if the move leads to substantially higher prices and extends an economic downturn.

Just days after Mr. Chávez cut the value of the “strong bolivar” currency, some businesses were marking up prices. Shoppers jammed stores to stock up on goods before the increases took hold.
Amelia Soto, a 52-year-old housewife waited in line at a Caracas drugstore to buy 23 tubes of toothpaste. “Everywhere I hear that prices are going to skyrocket so I want to buy as much as I can now,” she said.
Airlines have doubled fares; government officials said they were looking into reports that large retail chains were also increasing prices.
. . .
The price increases are setting the stage for confrontations with authorities following Mr. Chávez’s orders to shut down retailers that raise prices.
. . .
The higher prices for consumer goods represent a huge liability for a country facing 27% inflation, one of the highest levels in the world.

For the full story, see:
DARCY CROWE and DAN MOLINSKI. “Prices in Venezuela Surge After Devaluation.” The Wall Street Journal (Weds., JANUARY 13, 2010): A8.
(Note: the online version of the article has the title “Venezuelans Rush to Shop as Stores Increase Prices.”)
(Note: ellipses added.)

Venture Capitalists Invested 37% Less in Start-Ups in 2009

(p. B5) Venture capitalists, whose money provides fuel to technology start-ups, last year invested the lowest amount in such companies since 1997, according to a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association released on Friday.
. . .
In 2009, venture capitalists invested $17.7 billion in 2,795 start-ups — 37 percent less cash and 30 percent fewer deals than in 2008. Internet companies, which have excited investors for more than a decade, took a big hit as investment declined 39 percent.

For the full story, see:
CLAIRE CAIN MILLER. “Venture Capital Was Tight for Tech Start-Ups in ’09.” The New York Times (Fri., January 22, 2010): B5.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

Chinese Economic Crisis Predicted by Investor Who Predicted Enron Collapse

“James Chanos made his hedge fund fortune predicting problems at companies and shorting their stock.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

Chanos’ views discussed below are plausible and worth taking seriously. Earlier and overlapping worries about the sustainability of China’s boom were expressed in a credible and scary book by David Smick called The World is Curved.
In addition to some of the concerns expressed by Chanos, Smick also emphasizes that China’s restrictions on the internet will dampen the ability of its entrepreneurs to succeed. That view seems prescient given China’s growing attempts to censor the internet and to hack Google.

(p. B1) SHANGHAI — James S. Chanos built one of the largest fortunes on Wall Street by foreseeing the collapse of Enron and other highflying companies whose stories were too good to be true.

Now Mr. Chanos, a wealthy hedge fund investor, is working to bust the myth of the biggest conglomerate of all: China Inc.
As most of the world bets on China to help lift the global economy out of recession, Mr. Chanos is warning that China’s hyperstimulated economy is headed for a crash, rather than the sustained boom that most economists predict. Its surging real estate sector, buoyed by a flood of speculative capital, looks like “Dubai times 1,000 — or worse,” he frets. He even suspects that Beijing is cooking its books, faking, among other things, its eye-popping growth rates of more than 8 percent.
“Bubbles are best identified by credit excesses, not valuation excesses,” he said in a recent appearance on CNBC. “And there’s no bigger credit excess than in China.” He is planning a speech later this month at the University of Oxford to drive home his point.
. . .
(p. B4) . . . he is tagging along with the bears, who see mounting evidence that China’s stimulus package and aggressive bank lending are creating artificial demand, raising the risk of a wave of nonperforming loans.
“In China, he seems to see the excesses, to the third and fourth power, that he’s been tilting against all these decades,” said Jim Grant, a longtime friend and the editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, who is also bearish on China. “He homes in on the excesses of the markets and profits from them. That’s been his stock and trade.”
Mr. Chanos declined to be interviewed, citing his continuing research on China. But he has already been spreading the view that the China miracle is blinding investors to the risk that the country is producing far too much.
“The Chinese,” he warned in an interview in November with Politico.com, “are in danger of producing huge quantities of goods and products that they will be unable to sell.”

For the full story, see:
DAVID BARBOZA. “Shorting China: the Man Who Predicted Enron’s Fall Sees a Bigger Collapse Ahead.” The New York Times (Fri., January 8, 2010): B1 & B5.
(Note: the online version of the article has the title “Contrarian Investor Sees Economic Crash in China” and is dated January 7, 2010.)
(Note: ellipses added.)

The reference to the Smick book is:
Smick, David M. The World Is Curved: Hidden Dangers to the Global Economy. New York: Portfolio Hardcover, 2008.

“Now Mr. Chanos is betting against China, and is promoting his view that the China miracle has blinded investors to the risks in that economy.” Source of caption and poster: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited above.

Art Diamond Identified as One of “the Country’s Most Prolific and Influential Economics Bloggers”

Source of graph: http://image.exct.net/lib/fef61175736207/m/1/Q9-Report-Card2.gif

The Kauffman Foundation recently invited me to participate in a quarterly survey on economic policy that they are compiling from among bloggers who they have identified as among “the country’s most prolific and influential economics bloggers.” I agreed to participate.
Apparently tomorrow (2/2/10) they will release the results of the first survey.
Below I have quoted most of a press release that they emailed out today.
(The Kauffman Foundation is one of the leading non-profit organizations supporting research on entrepreneurship.)

Top Economics Bloggers Grade U.S. Institutions that Influence Economy in New Kauffman Survey

Watch for complete results tomorrow of the first
‘Kauffman Economic Outlook:
A Quarterly Survey of Leading Economics Bloggers’

The country’s most prolific and influential economics bloggers grade the institutions and organizations that impact the economy in a new Kauffman Foundation survey. On an A to F grading scale, the nation’s top economics bloggers give the highest marks to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and General Accountability Office (GAO), as well as to the “U.S. business community.” Central banks such as the Federal Reserve and European Central Bank got passing grades by most, with few A’s and many F’s. Similarly, the World Bank had mixed marks. The worst marks went to Wall Street firms (31 percent F’s) and the U.S. Congress (51 percent F’s).
Learn more about what these insightful analysts think about U.S. economic performance, policy, institutions, and the deficit in the first “Kauffman Economic Outlook: A Quarterly Survey of Economics Bloggers,” which will debut tomorrow, Feb. 2, 2010, at www.kauffman.org.
The survey was conducted in mid-January 2010 by soliciting input from bloggers ranked among the top 200 economics bloggers according to Palgrave’s Econolog.net. Ten core questions and seven topical questions were designed in coordination with a distinguished board of advisors.

Web version of press release:
http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe5916727d650c747316&m=fef61175736207&ls=fded1c77726707797712717c&l=fe5815757461007a7c13&s=fe27157476630575771d75&jb=ffcf14&ju=fe2f16767565027b701575

Recession Is Prolonged By Doubts on Obama Policies

(p. A17) Several pieces of evidence point to extreme caution by businesses and households. A regular survey by the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) shows that recent capital expenditures and near-term plans for new capital investments remain stuck at 35-year lows. The same survey reveals that only 7% of small businesses see the next few months as a good time to expand. Only 8% of small businesses report job openings, as compared to 14%-24% in 2008, depending on month, and 19%-26% in 2007.

The weak economy is far and away the most prevalent reason given for why the next few months is “not a good time” to expand, but “political climate” is the next most frequently cited reason, well ahead of borrowing costs and financing availability. The authors of the NFIB December 2009 report on Small Business Economic Trends state: “the other major concern is the level of uncertainty being created by government, the usually [sic] source of uncertainty for the economy. The ‘turbulence’ created when Congress is in session is often debilitating, this year being one of the worst. . . . There is not much to look forward to here.”
Government statistics tell a similar story. Business investment in the third quarter of 2009 is down 20% from the low levels a year earlier. Job openings are at the lowest level since the government began measuring the concept in 2000. The pace of new job creation by expanding businesses is slower than at any time in the past two decades and, though older data are not as reliable, likely slower than at any time in the past half-century. While layoffs and new claims for unemployment benefits have declined in recent months, job prospects for unemployed workers have continued to deteriorate. The exit rate from unemployment is lower now than any time on record, dating back to 1967.
According to the Michigan Survey of Consumers, 37% of households plan to postpone purchases because of uncertainty about jobs and income, a figure that has not budged since the second quarter of 2009, and one that remains higher than any previous year back to 1960.
These facts suggest that it was a serious economic mistake to press for a hasty, major transformation of the U.S. economy on the heels of the worst financial crisis in decades. A more effective approach would have been to concentrate first on fighting the recession and laying solid foundations for growth. They should have put plans to re-engineer the economy on the backburner, and kept them there until the economy emerged fully from the recession and returned to robust growth. By failing to adopt a measured approach to economic policy, Congress and the president may be slowing the economic recovery, and thereby prolonging the distress from the recession.

For the full commentary, see:
GARY S. BECKER, STEVEN J. DAVIS AND KEVIN M. MURPHY. “OPINION; Uncertainty and the Slow Recovery; A recession is a terrible time to make major changes in the economic rules of the game.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., JANUARY 4, 2010): A17.
(Note: ellipsis in original.)

Wall Street Bet that Feds Would “Paper Over Mistakes”

In the commentary quoted below, “LTCM” stands for the Long-Term Capital Management hedge fund.

(p. A25) Because families without the real economic means to repay traditional 30-year mortgages were getting them, housing prices grew to artificially high levels.

This is where the real sin of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac comes into play. Both were created by Congress to make housing affordable to the middle class. But when they began guaranteeing subprime loans, they actually began pricing out the working class from the market until the banking business responded with ways to make repayment of mortgages allegedly easier through adjustable rates loans that start off with low payments. But these loans, fully sanctioned by the government, were a ticking time bomb, as we’re all now so painfully aware.
A similar bomb exploded in 1998, when LTCM blew up. The policy response to the LTCM debacle is instructive; more than anything else it solidified Wall Street’s belief that there were little if any real risks to risk-taking. With $5 billion under management, LTCM was deemed too big to fail because, with nearly every major firm copying its money losing trades, much of Wall Street might have failed with it.
That’s what the policy makers told us anyway. On Wall Street there’s general agreement that the implosion of LTCM would have tanked one of the biggest risk takers in the market, Lehman Brothers, a full decade before its historic bankruptcy filing. Officials at Merrill, including its then-CFO (and future CEO) Stan O’Neal, believed Merrill’s risk-taking in esoteric bonds could have led to a similar implosion 10 years before its calamitous merger with Bank of America.
We’ll never know if LTCM’s demise would have tanked the financial system or simply tanked a couple of firms that bet wrong. But one thing is certain: A valuable lesson in risk-taking was lost. By 2007, the years of excessive risk-taking, aided and abetted by the belief that the government was ready to paper over mistakes, had taken their toll.
With so much easy money, with the government always ready to ease their pain, Wall Street developed new and even more innovative ways to make money through risk-taking.

For the full commentary, see:
CHARLES GASPARINO. “Three Decades of Subsidized Risk; There’s a reason Dick Fuld didn’t believe Lehman would be allowed to fail.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., NOVEMBER 6, 2009): A25.

Young Firms Create Two-Thirds of New Jobs

(p. A25) While a slight improvement over last month’s numbers, today’s employment update from the Bureau of Labor Statistics presents a dismal picture for American workers. As policy makers search for the best remedies to strengthen our economic performance, they can’t afford to overlook new firms and young firms.

Unfortunately, in troubled economic times the language of recovery is too often tilted toward large, established companies or to “small businesses,” a broad term that traditionally applies to businesses with fewer than 500 employees. The conventional wisdom is that such businesses account for half of the labor force and are therefore the engine of future job creation.
That’s not quite the case. The more precise factor is not the size of businesses, but rather their age. According to the Census Bureau, nearly all net job creation in the U.S. since 1980 occurred in firms less than five years old. A Kauffman Foundation report released yesterday shows that as recently as 2007, two-thirds of the jobs created were in such firms. Put more starkly, without new businesses, job creation in the American economy would have been negative for many years.
. . .
Entrepreneurs have a proven track record of job creation, especially in the early years of their firms. Eliminating or lowering the economic and regulatory hurdles that stand in the way of their success will pave the way for sustained expansion after the government’s current stimulus measures come to their inevitable end.

For the full commentary, see:
CARL SCHRAMM, ROBERT LITAN AND DANE STANGLER. “New Business, Not Small Business, Is What Creates Jobs; Nearly all net job creation since 1980 occurred in firms less than five years old.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., NOVEMBER 6, 2009): A25.
(Note: ellipsis added.)