Twitter: Blame the price of oil 2007-08
This is the most stunning alternative view of what happened to our economy and finances I've seen. Reynolds says, and shows, that it was the price of oil that wreaked havoc. This is stolen from the current Claremont Review of Books.
Alan Reynolds
"This recession is not just a U.S. problem, not just about housing, and not just financial. Consider each point, in turn:
Germany,
France, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and Hong Kong fell into recession in
the second quarter (arguably before the United States and United
Kingdom) when the price of oil rose as high as $145 a barrel. This was
no coincidence. Soaring oil prices raise the cost of production and
distribution for many industries, and reduce real household incomes and
therefore consumption.
In 1983, economist James Hamilton of
U.C. San Diego showed that "all but one of the U.S. recessions since
World War Two have been preceded...by a dramatic increase in the price
of crude petroleum." By the year 2000 we had been through nine dramatic
spikes in the price of oil, every one of which was soon followed by
recession. Writing in the Financial Times on January 2, 2008, I
suggested that "the U.S. economy is likely to slip into recession
because of higher energy costs alone, regardless of what the Fed does"
(and regardless of housing too).
Ten months later (November 8),
the Economist noted that, "All three previous recessions came after
housing booms and oil shocks." They were talking about the U.K., but
could have been talking about the U.S. Yet housing slumps can be a
consequence of recession rather than a major cause. The housing bust in
places like Detroit and Cleveland was not preceded by a boom.
Aside
from hot spots in California, Nevada, Arizona, and Florida, the
American housing boom was less exuberant than many others. On December
6, 2007, the Economist revealed that housing prices had increased 102%
over the previous decade in the U.S., but 144% in France, 159% in
Australia, 190% in Spain, 213% in Britain, and 240% in Ireland.
When
the U.S. economy began to contract in 2008, the biggest drop in housing
starts was behind us. Falling residential investment subtracted more
than a percentage point from real GDP growth in 2006 and 2007, but only
half a point in the second and third quarters of 2008. By the second
quarter of 2008, home prices were lower than a year earlier in ten
states, according to the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
(OFHEO), but higher in 26 states.
Unbearable increases in the
world prices of oil and metals are a better explanation of the
recession's geographical and industrial breadth, regardless of the
added problems with housing and finance. And that, in turn, means
falling prices of oil and metals are sowing the seeds for recovery in
2009—including a housing recovery.
What about finance? The
November 10, 2008 issue of Business Week said, "Despite the
government's best efforts, it may be 2010 before U.S. banks are willing
to lend freely again." But bank lending was flat or down only between
April and July of 2008. After that, the Fed's weekly H.8 report showed
bank loans rising steadily from $6.91 trillion in July to $7.27
trillion by late October. The sudden bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers
caused money market funds to shun commercial paper for the few weeks
ending October 1, but nonfinancial commercial paper outstanding rose 9%
in the following five weeks. Interest rates on interbank loans (Libor)
came down too. Even if more credit was a sensible solution to excessive
debt, the "credit crisis" has been exaggerated.
By the time of
the U.S. presidential election, the multi-causal global recession was
half over. Because unemployment is a lagging indicator, unfortunately,
we won't hear that the recession has ended in 2009 until at least
another few months have passed."
Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of Income and Wealth (Greenwood Press).
See Reynolds' additional observation below in comments.
Recent Comments