| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Crisis comes to the real economy
One of the curious features of 2008 was how little impact the recession seemed to have on everyday life for most of us. Indeed, aside from a few early bears, the hot debate seemed to be whether or not there would be a recession at all. As late as September, traders on Intrade were betting against a recession in 2008. Despite all this, the NBER recently established that the US economy went into recession in December of 2007.
While the recession was drifting by like an iceberg in the background, the financial system was freezing up. The violent tremors occured in June 2007 when two Bear Stearns' hedge funds laden with mortgage debt became publicly insolvent. Bear itself went under in February of 2008 and by July the dominoes really started to fall in the financial sector.
Now, the fallout in the real economy is starting to come fast and furious. This is scary stuff and still we've only seen the tip of the iceberg.
1. Nortel is bankrupt.
Nortel Networks Corp., the phone equipment maker that was once Canada’s largest company by market value, filed for bankruptcy protection after losses mounted and financing dried up amid a deepening recession.
The century-old company, North America’s biggest maker of phone gear and worth about $250 billion at its peak in 2000, fell victim to reduced spending by customers such as Verizon Communications Inc. and competition from Cisco Systems Inc. The company made the filing a day before a $107 million interest payment was due...
2. Retail sales has collapsed.

Retail sales are a key portion of consumer spending and real retail sales have fallen off a cliff.
And retailers are going bankrupt:
- Gottschalks - 1904-2009 - R.I.P.
- Goody's - 1953-2009 - R.I.P.
3. Shipping has is slowing to a crawl across the globe.
"They have already hit zero," said Charles de Trenck, a broker at Transport Trackers in Hong Kong. "We have seen trade activity fall off a cliff. Asia-Europe is an unmitigated disaster."
Shipping journal Lloyd's List said brokers in Singapore are now waiving fees for containers travelling from South China, charging only for the minimal "bunker" costs. Container fees from North Asia have dropped $200, taking them below operating cost.
Industry sources said they have never seen rates fall so low. "This is a whole new ball game," said one trader.
The Baltic Dry Index (BDI) which measures freight rates for bulk commodities such as iron ore and grains crashed several months ago, falling 96pc. The BDI – though a useful early-warning index – is highly volatile and exaggerates apparent ups and downs in trade. However, the latest phase of the shipping crisis is different. It has spread to core trade of finished industrial goods, the lifeblood of the world economy.
Trade data from Asia's export tigers has been disastrous over recent weeks, reflecting the collapse in US, UK and European markets.
:::::
A report by ING yesterday said shipping activity at US ports has suddenly dived. Outbound traffic from Long Beach and Los Angeles, America's two top ports, has fallen by 18pc year-on-year, a far more serious decline than anything seen in recent recessions.
"This is no regular cycle slowdown, but a complete collapse in foreign demand," said Lindsay Coburn, ING's trade consultant.
:::::
It became difficult for the shippers to obtain routine letters of credit at the height of financial crisis over the autumn, causing goods to pile up at ports even though there was a willing buyer at the other end. Analysts say this problem has been resolved, but the shipping industry has since been swamped by the global trade contraction.
The World Bank caused shockwaves with a warning last month that global trade may decline this year for the first time since the Second World War. This appears increasingly certain with each new batch of data.
Financial Armageddon links to a Wall Street Journal article on the state of the U.S. freight industry: Freight Haulers Slam on the Brakes.
In a normal year, Gordon Trucking Inc. might replace 20% of its fleet of 1,500 big rigs with new trucks. But given the bleak outlook for the freight business, the Pacific, Wash., hauler doesn't intend to buy a single new truck next year.
"We're settling in for nuclear winter in the first half of 2009," says Steve Gordon, operating chief for the company, which hauls everything from paper products to electronics.
He's not alone. Some industry executives and analysts predict that 2009 could be the worst year for freight-transportation volume in three decades or more. As a result, companies in industries ranging from trucking to railroads to ocean shipping are scaling back sharply.
:::::
At a Kenworth plant in Renton, Wash., more than 400 employees will lose their jobs when the company, a subsidiary of Paccar Inc., suspends making heavy-duty highway trucks at the plant next year, according to Don Hursey of the machinists union, who says he has been briefed on the plans. Just a few years ago, the plant produced 50 big rigs a day, he says. A Kenworth spokesman declines to specify how many workers will lose their jobs.
"This is the tip of the iceberg," Mr. Hursey says. "It's going to be a disaster next year for the entire industry. I'm scared to death."
- johnson springs's blog
- Login or register to post comments


Comments
We not only have a financial
We not only have a financial crisis on Wall Street. But we also have multitude of other problems and they have not been addressed.
The Bush administration, the democrats, and Alan Greenspan targeted housing for this past cycle. They all missed the boat. The problem is globalization.
We cannot compete with third world countries. China has 1 billion people, India 1 billion people, Eastern Europe has opened up. All this puts pressure of our jobs leaving the country, less wages, less in healthcare, and less pension. At this rate, we will lose our standard of living. Bush talks of free trade and factories close. And we see our cities and states going broke.
The only way to counter this is with infrastructural spending, energy independence, mandatory vocational training, embryonic stem cell research and science, and all the research and development to create new jobs that will replace the old jobs. You need to create jobs that will stay here. We have had 8 years of tax cuts, but that does not attack the issues. And this is where the republicans are just clueless.
How do you know what the market needs?
Only the market knows what it can afford, what it needs. Before the government can spend, it must first take those funds out of the economic system. The market is quite capable of doing all you have suggested and much, much more than you have even dreamed of.
We got into this mess by government spending more than the market can afford, and now your prescription is to have the government spend yet more, taking more funds out of the marketplace.
There are a few worthy projects that would justify massive government spending, but not now, not at the present time. The market can recover from this recession if we can hold down government spending.
ex animo
davidfarrar
You've got to be kidding. The
You've got to be kidding. The markets are telling us today that we will lose our jobs, our wages, our healthcare, and our pensions. Because the markets dictate that products will be made by the cheapest price. The stores are full of Chinese stuff. They want our jobs. It is a world economy now. We do not live in a world of our own
We have been losing jobs to free trade and globalization and when Bush has spoke about it, the factories close. Cities and states are going broke as the factories close. The markets have been telling us this for the past few years.
If the market is capable, then where is the embryonic stem cell research, why the neglect of the infrastructure, what are you going to do with an uneducated society when the factories close. What is being done with energy independence.
I am talking doing the right things. And that is management. Recognize problems in the economy and deal with it. So far nothing in 8 years.
The market place is not doing anything, we are in a recession. North Korea has a government supplying money for batteries for alternative cars. Singapore is taking our scientists for embryonic stem cell research and subsidizing it. We can't sit back and watch the flowers grow. You sit around doing nothing. And if you don't think the government can't create jobs, then look to the internet, bought and paid for with your tax dollars and it has produced millions of jobs around the world. We need new industry to replace what will leave this country. It can only be with a government/corporate pact to achieve the best in research.
We need to build a car with a battery that will go 100 miles or more on a charge. China will come in with a battery car that will get 63 miles to a charge. We need major research.
You just sit around and let the Japanese, the Chinese take over everything. As you sit on your tax cuts that is not doing anything.
You say "only the market knows" and that is exactly is what is going on. Our factories are closing, cities and states going broke as the jobs go overseas. That is the market. And we do nothing about it. We cannot compete with third world wages. We are losing our standard of living.
And you talk of government spending. Yes, Bush is spending 10 billion dollars a month in Iraq. That does us no good. We are sending our jobs overseas and then we send out money to Iraq, and we just borrow more money, and it is laissez-faire.
You people are so delusional. This has been a total waste of 8 years.
So who would sit around...
...and rant to a room full of delusional Republicans?
Before you write off American enginuity, its ability to compete in the world marketplace, just remember we have faced hard times before and we will face them again in the future. What is important is that government doesn't prolong this recession by taking even more capital out of the marketplace.
No government has every spent its way out of a recession. We need to keep more money in the marketplace by cutting government spending and lowering taxes, period. The sooner we have a government installed in Washington that will follow this blueprint for recovery, the sooner the recession will be over.
ex animo
davidfarrar
How is more money in the
How is more money in the market place when our jobs go overseas and our factories close. You are losing revenue to the cities, the states, and the federal government. It is the Iraq spending that is depriving our economy. What products can you buy, without being Chinese?
It take billions of dollars for research and development usually done by the NIH and other parts of our government. We are behind in medical technology. Bush vetoes embryonic stem cell research in which the NIH was doing. Singapore took over the lead. The internet was created by the government. And that created jobs. I hope you can comprehend that, that the government too can be the incubator for jobs.
If Apple or Dell creates something. It can still have the product made in some other country. It does us no good.
We already know for long term, that we need a better educated society. The factories close and you have an uneducated workforce. That means more people on welfare.
We already know that we need to be energy independent.
We already know that we are behind in science, and research and development. All of these things have been deprived by the Bush administration.
This would not prolong the recession. It compliments science, research and development. It compliments the economy. We are running behind in battery technology. All this is for our future. You have to invest in your future.
We haven't had an adequate government for 8 years. I am hopeful that Obama will get it together. After all, 8 years of not solving problems has shown what a mess this country is in. The other countries are doing so much more, and we sit here for what, I don't know.
And by the way, the patent office has a backlog of 700,000 patents.
deleted
deleted
Government never "creates jobs".
At best it can only ever steal money from taxpayers to create corporate subsidies. "Infrastructure spending, energy independence, mandatory vocational training, embryonic stem cell research, and science," is nothing more than a shopworn call for massive corporate welfare, which will do absolutely nothing to address the underlying reason for the exodus of American jobs overseas, i.e., that the average American worker doesn't bring additional value to the table compared to his overseas counterpart to justify paying him premium wages and benefits.
okay then, let america burn.
or you know, we could focus on what return on investment we get. How's 400% sound to you?
I'm not primarily interested in ROI.
I'm primarily interested in freedom. Even if every tax dollar spent by the government generated a 400% return -- a thoroughly laughable proposition in any case -- forcible confiscation of wealth would still amount to theft.
Moreover, if your "investment" is so terrific and so risk-free, then you should have absolutely no difficulty attracting voluntary investors. The fact that you can't, and have to loot money from the citizenry to pay for these boondoggles, speaks volumes.
The extent to which America will burn if we respect individuals' freedoms -- including their economic freedoms -- is the extent to which it should burn.
It's not forcible...
You could always move! lol
Seriously though, are you a person that thinks taxation=theft?
Two types of taxation
I see two broad types of taxation:
1. Taxation as user fees. These taxes pay for things that I actually consume, such as roads, parks, and national defense. I have absolutely no problem with this type of taxation as long as the money is well spent.
2. Taxation as wealth redistribution. These taxes take money from the producers and give it to the looters. This is the taxation that gets me all riled up. This is the taxation that IMO is one small step away from theft.
How do you pay for national defense?
How do you pay for national defense?
paying for national defense
In my ideal world? Things like national defense would be paid for first by a flat tax that everyone pays, and second proportionately by the amount of wealth and property one has. The idea is that everyone, no matter how rich or poor you are, is protected by national defense so everyone should pay something; and then the wealthier one is and/or the more property one has, the more one has to protect. That is, it should be treated like a user fee.
What if you don't want such protection?
Surely, there's no option to 'opt out' correct?
I'm sure liberals could use the same argument to support funding research going against global warming (it affects everyone!).
in an ideal libertarian world
Surely, there's no option to 'opt out' correct?
In an ideal Libertarian Utopia - yes, you should be able to opt out of national defense if you want and hire your own private defense force. But we don't live in utopia and we aren't ever going to get there. So I'm willing to say that government should provide certain services and compel taxation for those services from all, provided (1) that the free-rider problem for those services is overwhelmingly great that only government truly can provide them, and (2) that there is a strong historical precedent (i.e., centuries) for government to provide those services. In other words, only a very small number of services would qualify.
I'm sure liberals could use the same argument to support funding research going against global warming (it affects everyone!).
The research itself does not. The resulting action taken does. Apples and oranges.
How do you differentiate the two?
For instance, would you put the "Bridge to Nowhere" in the first or second category?
I still think we should choose which items we think our tax money should go towards, but I guess I'm the only one who thinks that way.
infrastructure
Ideally I would like to see infrastructure paid for on the most local level possible. Only things like interstate highways should be paid for by the federal government, and they had better truly be 'interstate'. (Did you know that Hawaii has "interstate highways"?) State and local roads should be paid for by state and local municipalities. And if people in those municipalities are concerned about out-of-towners tearing up their roads and not paying for it via taxation, they can always charge tolls.
enjoy your higher tax
on all those goods and services you buy.
I swear, some people don't understand how much the gov't does for them. or how distributed taxation is.
and the states in the south would suddenly be high tax states, under this plan.
higher taxes?
See that's the thing. I wouldn't mind paying even higher taxes than I pay now, provided that they were truly only for the things that I consume and not merely for purposes of redistribution of wealth. I think it's unlikely that taxation in a user-fee world would be higher than the status quo, though, since so much of our current tax burden goes to redistribution of wealth.
Oh I understand quite well how much government does for people. That doesn't mean I want government doing all those things for everyone. And I fully understand that "the rich" pay most of the taxes but that doesn't mean it's right or fair or just.
fair enough, at least you're being consistent.
I happen to disagree with you, at least in part, but I admire your consistency
Difference between what's good for one compared to many
The big question then, in my mind becomes, what services affect individuals and which affects the nation?
For instance, we're have laws that reduce taxation for married couples and those with children. Overall, that would be an extra burden to those who don't have children.
But many argue that the nation needs young children to replace older population in the workforce. How would you reconcile the two? Would you argue for the former or latter?
Do you think what's best for the individual should trump what's best for the nation in all cases? Or are there exceptions to the rule?
Try telling a rape victim
that she wasn't forcibly violated. After all, she could always refrain from dressing so provocatively, roflcoptor roxors boxors.
Yes, I am a person that believes taxation (as distinguished from use fees and philanthropy) is theft.
No one's forcing you to stay in America though...
Just clarifying. I surely think there are other modes of living that would give you more freedom, in the sense that they would not tax you (for instance, living in a jungle somewhere maybe) but those probably aren't 'realistic' scenarios.
are you aware of the concept of distributed risk?
or of ETFs? that's essentially what the gov't does when they support basic research. Distribute risk, so that they can afford to let ten projects burn so that the eleventh can make the internet. Or mechanical soldiers, or something like that.
your america is probably not one that i'd like to live in.
That is fine then. China and
That is fine then. China and other countries are spending money on innovation, research and development, as that is the means for future wealth. We don't have to do that.
Explain the word "steal" in your first line.
Explain, please, how the government steals money from taxpayers.
Simple: By taxing them.
All forcible confiscation of wealth amounts to theft. That it is accomplished by an agency acting at the behest of a democratically-elected government doesn't alter the basic calculus: government is seizing something to which its only entitlement is the will of the mob. The will of the mob cannot be a proper moral or legal basis for violating the rights of individuals, property rights included.
Only in an extremely limited sense is collectivist taxation distinguishable from theft: unlike apologists for collectivism, thieves don't self-righteously castigate their victims that they're stealing the money for the victim's own good, or for the commonweal.
Why stay in America then?
Because it's the best alternative? I mean, if you didn't want to be taxed, you could probably pool all your money together, liquidate it, and try to find a home in the jungles of Borneo... or is that Bornea?
Basically, yes.
In terms of protecting the economic liberties of its citizenry, the U.S. sucks the least. That's not to say that it doesn't suck, or that its suckfulness is a fixed quantity given the crowd you softheads just voted into office.
Borneo awaits!
I'm sure the tribes in Africa could give you more freedom? :D
Frankly, you and I both know that politicians are going to take money from us. The key is determining where it might slightly improve our lives, and where it wouldn't. At least, that's the way I feel.
The fact that politicians
The fact that politicians will steal from us is not a reason to avoid developing the philosophical clarity necessary to appreciate what's really going on.
finding paradise
Why do we have to leave? Why don't you and your friends find your own tropical paradise?
Cmon now
Like it's liberals who installed politics...
Let's be realistic. Politics is just a gentlemanly way of using force. And if politics don't work, force will take over. After all, you won't 'convince' the government to let you skate on your taxes right?
It isn't a 'liberal' OR 'conservative' mindset that enables politics. It's just unrealistic to beleive that you will be left alone, unless you isolate yourself from humanity at large.
Maybe you can get lucky, and find a few like-minded individuals. Then you can find an uninhabited strip of land to try and live on. Until somebody with a bigger gun than you tries to take it.
The way I see it, politics is a way of avoiding having to shoot everyone that wants to take something from you. Not a very good solution, but better than no solution.
Edit: Additionally, this very post points out the issue. if I lay claim to a certain bit of land, and you lay claim to it as well, if we do not agree to a compromise (what politics basically is) then force is our only option, no?
Shooting People
The way I see it, politics is a way of avoiding having to shoot everyone that wants to take something from you. Not a very good solution, but better than no solution.
What's your metric for "better"?
Purely in dollars and cents terms, it's a lousy deal: the money that I've had confiscated from me in taxes just in the last five years would have been sufficient to purchase north of a million rounds of ammo at retail, not wholesale, prices. Plus, human corpses can then be composted, so the transaction isn't a complete loss.
I should add that what I mean by "leave me alone" is "stop trying to control my life", not "do not interact with me, ever".
your line on corpses made my jaw drop.
then I laughed.
Sorry, but you'd have to be able to buy a bomb or something... not that I think given enough time and people you couldn't... but I do think that I wouldn't trust y'all not to use it. no offense.
self-respect
But I'm not asking to be completely isolated from the rest of humanity. I'm merely asking to live in a place where the vast majority of transactions are voluntary. That's all. It is just mutual self-respect. I thought we had that for a time in this country.
So then, you want zero taxation?
Given that taxes are set by our elected representatives, how are they forcible confiscation?
Moreover, given your response, are you saying that all taxation is theft? That we should have zero taxation?
Yes.
How are taxes not forcible confiscation? Are you paying them voluntarily? I'm certainly not. I'm paying them only because if I don't pay, the IRS puts a lien on my property enforced by guys with guns, and sends me to jail for the made-up crime of "tax evasion".
As I explained above, the fact that taxes are set by our elected representatives doesn't alter the basic calculus one iota. That the mob authorizes agents to steal on its behalf doesn't legitimize the theft.
Yes, I'm saying that all taxation is theft, and that we should have zero taxation. Necessary government services should be funded by use fees, and the "social safety net" should be funded by voluntary philanthropy.
Explain to me how that works.
Yes, I pay my taxes voluntarily, becasue that is what a citizen does.
Explain to me how "use fees" work. You hear a burglar downstairs - you call, give the police your CC details, and they come check it out?
The SEC has reason to suspect the someone is running a Ponzi scheme. They need to setup an investigation. They contact the suspected scammer first and say "we are going to investigate you, just as soon as you pay".
Congratulations on your philanthropy.
I'd be more than happy with government agencies operating under an opt-out subscription model: assume that citizens are "subscribing" to whatever service the agency provides unless they expressly opt out, and then bill the subscriber base for services rendered over the last billing cycle. Individuals who opt out don't have to pay the subscription fees, but either forego the benefits of government services entirely or accept higher per-incident billing.
I can see that breaking down
I can see that breaking down pretty quickly with police, fire and county ER services. The poor, who are likely to 'opt out' because they truly can't afford it or decide to use their limited funds for something else (whether responsibly or irresponsibly) will then be unable able to pay the higher per-incident billing when they use the services. And then who gets to underwrite the unrecoverable costs? It will be split among the subscribers. To me that sounds pretty much like it how works now, so you've really just built a horse by another name. Or do you imagine that after the first unpaid bill the fire or police department could refuse to respond, or the ER could turn away that person regardless of circumstances?
Enh.
It's not really anything like it works now, since I don't get a cyclical bill from my municipality for police services, another cyclical bill for fire services, another cyclical bill for EMS services, yadda yadda, from which I can customize a package of services that meet my individualized needs, and for which I pay voluntarily. I get a single tax bill that I'm forced to pay, that bears little relationship to the actual operating costs of government agencies, let alone the costs of services I've consumed.
To accomodate those few poor folks who truly can't afford the service, put a checkbox on the monthly bill enabling subscribers to voluntarily contribute a modest additional sum towards a charitable fund for their benefit. Given that most of us will have some extra sheckels from having declined to pay for the government services we don't need or want, I suspect most Americans would be glad to -- again, voluntarily -- help those in legitimate need. We're a generous people.
As for the folks who decide to buy an X-Box rather than buy fire services or EMS, fuck them. If they continue to try to freeload once they're in arrears, cut them off and hold them accountable for their irresponsibility. Oh, your house burned down and you lost everything? Hope those hours you spent playing Halo were worth it. Oh, you're having a heart attack and need immediate medical attention? Hope Grand Theft Auto prepared you to drive to the emergency room while suffering tachycardia.
can parents also bill their children
for services rendered, or do you onhly want this to apply to gov't? ;-)
OK, another question. Let's
OK, another question. Let's say 75% of the population decides to take a flyer and just pay for the fire or EMS services if they happen to need them. How many firetrucks will the city (company?) be able to buy and staff operating on, say, 25% of the base they had with taxes? Probably a lot fewer. Now let's say that demand for services stays relatively constant, at least to the extent that the same number of trucks and staff are required to maintain response times, which isn't an unreasonable assumption because there's nothing I can see in your plan that would reduce demand. But now we have far fewer trucks and staff. Are you also willing to accept, and sell, this plan on the basis of greatly increased response times? Or do you see that as being the 'hammer' to bring the great majority of people on as 'subscribers' -- in which case, nothing has really changed but what we call it, assuming you don't find significant ways to cut expenses over the tax model. But now you've also got the administrative costs associated with per-incident billing and collections. I'd be surprised if this would in any way beat the tax system unless everyone is OK with the likelihood of greatly increased response times.
Liberals are always telling me...
that fire, police, and so forth are CRUCIAL PUBLIC SERVICES VITAL TO SUSTAINING OUR STANDARD OF LIVING.
Have you all been lying out your asses all this time, or is it really likely that 3/4 the population will opt out entirely or choose to pay on a per-incident basis?
FWIW, I'm not a liberal. I
FWIW, I'm not a liberal. I am one of the great unwashed masses in the middle; I'm probably best described as fiscally conservative but socially moderate.
Yes, I personally do like having access to those services within a reasonable response time. You're free to decide they're not crucial and put out the fire yourself or drive yourself to the hospital in the throes of a heart attack.
I posed my questions because I don't think it's unreasonable to assume a very large percentage of people would opt out unless some substantial incentive is present to drive them into the subscriber base. My 75% was based on assuming these kind of groups would otherwise have little motivation to subscribe:
But you're free to drop it to 50%. I'd still like to hear how we would maintain response times or if that's where you'd find the savings.
My question still stands.
I posed my questions because I don't think it's unreasonable to assume a very large percentage of people would opt out unless some substantial incentive is present to drive them into the subscriber base.
Why? Again: I am constantly told that these are ABSOLUTELY VITAL PUBLIC SERVICES. If that is indeed the case, then it is utterly unreasonable to assume a significant percentage of people would opt out absent some mechanism to drive them into the subscriber base. People don't "make do" without near-necessities, which is how police, fire, etc. are routinely characterized.
So are these services near-necessities, or not?
We tried that before
And it didn't work out so well.
See: Gangs of New York
The film was fiction, guy.
n/t
Correction
Historical fiction.
btw, there's already a place where people pay freelancers for police protection. It's called Noo Yock Siddy.