“Now that President Obama has signed a $787 stimulus package [sic] into law and weighed tens of billions more to aid homeowners and banks,” deadpans a hastily-written New York Times political blogpost, “he will take a break next Monday to consider just how the government can get a grip on its increasingly ugly balance sheet.”

Yes folks, it’s the “fiscal responsibility summit,” not to be confused with the “fiscal wakeup tour” chronicled in I.O.U.S.A.

90 invitees will wring their hands over the prospect of a $2 trillion dollar deficit this year.  No word yet who exactly is on the guest list, but we know the rough makeup of this august panel — 30 House members, 30 senators, and “30 scholars and representatives of advocacy groups such as AARP.”

Well, I guess the irony of inviting habitual big spenders isn’t too thick if George W. Bush isn’t among the invitees.

“After Mr. Obama opens the summit,” the Times continues, “the assemblage will break into six groups. Each will discuss separate topics that encompass the range of fiscal challenges that would exist even without the current recession and will endure once the economy recovers. The topics include health-care costs, Social Security, tax reform, defense procurement and the federal budget process.”

I can give you a rough outline of what these guys are going to come up with right now, before the summit takes place, without even knowing who’s taking part.

• Health care costs: No big solutions will be proposed, but whatever short-term fixes are floated will will further intrude on privacy, further restrict patient choice, and further line the pockets of the insurance companies.  (Memo to everyone who fears “socialized medicine”: Never gonna happen.  What will happen is a further cementing of a system that, if I may borrow from James Grant’s terminology for the financial sector, privatizes profit and socializes cost.  Free-market fee-for-service solutions?  That’s not something Serious People talk about.)
• Social Security: Again, don’t expect any big pronouncements here, but we will get some sort of trial balloon for raising taxes and/or lowering benefits.  The president’s budget chief is on record supporting benefit cuts for everyone under age 55.
• Tax reform: Oh, let me guess.  Maybe a recommendation to fix the alternative minimum tax once and for all.  And said proposal will go nowhere.  Fundamental rethinking of the system will not be open for discussion.
• Defense procurement: Much noise about reining in costs, maybe even lip service to rethinking whether we need Cold War-era ships and aircraft to fight guys in caves.  But as with the health insurance industry, the special interests are simply too well-entrenched.
• The federal budget process: Lip service to fighting “waste, fraud, and abuse.”

There, that was easy.  There’s your “fiscal responsibility summit.”  Everyone can slap each other on the back when it’s over and feel really good about themselves when they go home.  And we’ll fall even further into a multi-trillion-dollar hole.

Source: Fiscal Responsibility Follies

This from The Sovereign Society:

It’s often the case that the most important news isn’t what’s happening in the world today, but what’s not happening in the world today. Case in point; President-elect Obama’s constantly growing stimulus is not driving the market upward.

Going back to the Fall of 2007, the Fed’s interest rate cuts served as an immediate boost that pushed the markets higher. As planned, these infusions of credit helped to boost market confidence and morale…even if only for a few days or weeks.

Their effect lessened and lessened as time went on…and the boost from December’s rate cut only lasted a few sessions before being gobbled up by market uncertainty. Now, President-elect Obama is pulling out literally all of the stops in declarations about his planned stimulus…

A few states looking for a few hundred billion quickly grew into a US$1 trillion stimulus package. And the US$1 trillion stimulus package quickly grew into multiple years of US$1 trillion budget deficits. 1.5 million new jobs balloons to 4 million new jobs…but the stock market doesn’t even flinch.

What gives? With what seems like a promise to write blank checks, infusing seemingly unlimited amounts of credit into the flagging economy, why isn’t Obama’s stimulus effort gaining any short-term traction in the marketplace?

It’s a (Liquidity) Trap!!

In monetary economics, a ‘liquidity trap’ happens when a Central Bank’s nominal interest rate reaches zero and investors stop expecting significant returns on their financial and real investments…and start sitting in cash.

Think about it; cash only ever yields zero. But when the Fed’s interest rate hits zero, the same is true of short-term credit. The two are comparable in terms of reward…both yield zero. So there’s no incentive to take a risk and lend when you can expect the same returns from hoarding cash. This is true for both consumers and businesses, and it’s especially true when you account for the increasing default risk and general uncertainty that have become commonplace in today’s markets.

So in its efforts to stimulate the economy, the Fed is actually doing the exact opposite…slowing the economy by adding even more incentive to hoard cash in these troubling times.

As a result, the marketplace becomes resistant – if not outright immune – to further infusions of credit. Be it through trillions in deficit-spending “stimulus,” or the witchcraft of quantitative easing, the job of stimulating the economy after implementing a zero interest-rate policy becomes much, much more difficult.

And in light of recent news covering the precipitous drop in consumer demand, you’d be hard-pressed to find Obama’s planned stimulus showing any traction in the marketplace. Combined with the rising savings rate, the current freefall in consumer demand means disaster for corporate earnings and – in turn – share prices. This gradual realization will likely continue to offset any boost offered by Obama’s continued pep talks.

In reality, Obama’s pledge to make a new “New Deal” with the American people should be significantly boosting the economy. After all, the prevailing wisdom is that these kinds of policies helped us through the great depression. Those who were crossing their fingers for an “Obama Stimulus Rally” were almost spot-on…except they forgot about one thing.
The onerous burden of Central Bank policy.

No…it appears as though we won’t see a stimulus rally in January after all. And with any rally’s momentum deadened by the liquidity trap, one could reasonably expect that the market has reached its short-term peak.

Source: Federal Reserve Torpedoes Obama’s Stimulus Rally

That’s the natural pattern that most recessions follow. However, this has been a pretty unnatural recession, with a number of highly artificial actions undertaken to fight it, meaning we must plan for the possibility that it won’t be a “U” pattern, but will instead follow a less-frequently seen pattern.

When you think about it, the alphabet presents a number of fun shapes, patterns or trajectories that an economic cycle might follow. There’s a slightly slanting J – a shallow downturn followed by an energetic, near-vertical upswing. There’s an L – a descent into the recessionary pit, followed by a total refusal to recover – kind of like an accident victim who flat lines on the way to the emergency room. There’s an O, round and round in circles, never going anywhere – you can think of that as being the typical pre-industry economy, without significant technological change.

When the Roman Empire collapses or the Industrial Revolution happens, you get a (possibly upside-down) Q, in which the economy escapes from the static O, to move down or up in the Q’s tiny tail. There’s an R – round in circles for a time, followed by a sharp descent into the economic mire: That’s static – albeit cyclical – economy, where some environmental disaster hits, causing output to tank.

There’s both the U and the V – the latter being an economic cycle where a slump is immediately followed by a sharp rebound, with no period of depressed activity at the bottom.

And of course there’s the W, the classic “double-dip” recession, like the one the United States experienced in 1979-82. W-shaped recessions can be further divided into two types: There’s the “lazy W,” in which the second downturn is worse than the first; and there’s the “energetic W,” in which a deep recession is followed by a shallower one that is barely a blip in a strong recovery.

The recession of 1979-82 was a slightly lazy W, whereas the 1929-41 Depression-era downturn can be thought of as a very deep energetic W, in which the second dip (1937-38) was still part of the same overall economic event, but was much shallower than the first.

Had the United States been on a gold standard with an administration determined to maintain budget discipline, the current unpleasantness – which started with a major banking crisis – would probably have followed a V-shaped trajectory. The banking crisis would have caused output to descend rapidly to a considerable depth. But once a bottom was reached, the U.S. economy would have recovered almost immediately, showing a period of extra-rapid growth as output returned to a normal trajectory.

That’s how it worked in pre-Keynesian gold standard days, when governments and business followed the downturn advice of onetime U.S. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, who said it was wise to “liquidate everything.” The economy might descend to an unpleasant depth, but once it turned, the forces that would fuel the recovery were very strong. Thus, the recoveries after the recessions of 1893-96 and 1920-21 were both exceptionally vigorous by modern standards.

Most modern recessions are U-shaped, rather than V-shaped. When a recession hits, governments run budget deficits while central banks lower interest rates and allow the money supply to expand. That limits the depth of the downturn, but it also reduces the speed of the recovery, since the natural stimulus from a smaller downturn is weaker, while the government stimulus wears off after a while. That’s what we got in 1991 and 2001; in the latter case, the U.S. government stimulus, both monetary and fiscal, was very strong indeed, so the recession was extremely shallow, but recovery was exceptionally slow.

In 1979-82, we had a W-shaped recession. The first leg was caused primarily by U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul A. Volcker’s now-famous attack on inflation, in which he boosted interest rates well above their normal level, and choked off economic activity. That caused the first dip, which was ended by monetary relaxation. However, monetary policy was tightened again in late 1980, so we got a second dip, which was not balanced by the usual fiscal stimulus, and so proved to be quite deep. Being deep, the second half of the W was followed by a strong recovery from 1983.

This time around, both the initial banking crisis and the fiscal and monetary stimuli have been exceptionally strong. That raises the possibility of a W-shaped double-dip recession. Initially, the stimulus may act like a shot of adrenalin, causing the downturn to abort and be succeeded by what seems like recovery. However, the stimulus must inevitably be temporary, and will produce both extra-rapid money supply growth and an extra-deep budget deficit. That is likely to lead to a second downward leg, this time accompanied by unpleasant inflation, as the “hangover” from the excessive stimulus is felt.

Even more unpleasantly, we could see an L shape – “Bloody L,” if you’ll allow me to use a British Cockney phrase, reflecting the unpleasantness of the outcome. That would result in a situation in which the ultra-low interest rates left in place too long fuel inflation, while out-of-control public spending produces deficits that permanently dampen growth, so recovery never really arrives at all.

That can happen: Japan in the 1990s had an L-shaped economic downturn, although with zero growth rather than a prolonged recession. More ominously, Argentina after 1945 transitioned quite quickly from a rapidly growing, buoyant economy into a global basket case, with occasional bursts of hyperinflation. That’s the worst-case scenario for the United States. It’s not likely, but neither is it impossible.

So what are we most likely to see? The factors causing short-term strength are currently powerful. The collapse in oil prices has caused retail sales to be considerably less weak than expected, stronger consumer confidence and leading indicators both point to an approaching economic bottom, and the stock market is up more than 10% from its November low.

Instead of a “worst” down quarter, the first half of 2009 may see a period of unexpected strength, with cheap mortgage money producing an apparent bottom in the housing market, a bottoming out and initial recovery in U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), and an additional bounce in U.S. stock prices.

Don’t be fooled if this happens (though by all means try and make a buck or two out of the short-term stock market bounce). The Obama “stimulus package” and massive federal government slush funds will exact a price – in the second and probably deeper leg of a lengthy lazy W recession – the much-feared “double-dip” downturn.
Source: What Shape Will the U.S. Recession Take: U, W or ‘Bloody L?’