The New Frugality
David Rosenberg was Chief Economist for Merrill Lynch for many years, but I think their big corporate/institutional clients got tired of his consistently bearish warnings on the U.S. economy and so he left in the upheaval of 2009 for a smaller firm in Toronto. Many of us who valued his advice for keeping our money safe when the markets were tumbling, continue to follow him. (You can get his commentaries without being a client of the firm). Here are his thoughts on 2010.
The defining characteristic of this asset deflation and credit contraction has been the implosion of the largest balance sheet in the world -- the U.S. household sector. Even with the bear market rally in equities and the tenuous recovery in housing in 2009, the reality is that household net worth has contracted nearly 20% over the past year-and-a-half, or an epic $12 trillion of lost net worth, a degree of trauma we have never seen before. As households begin to assess the shock and what it means for their retirement needs, the impact of this shocking loss of wealth on consumer spending patterns in the future is likely going to be very significant. Frugality is the new fashion and likely to stay that way for years as attitudes toward discretionary spending, homeownership and credit undergo a secular shift towards prudence and conservatism.
I have been trying to communicate that we are entering a new world order for a while. An Interregnum. I am still worried that Gethner and Summers believe there job is to get us back to 1999 or 2005--a mall driven consumer frenzy. But it's not going to happen.
What's Plan B?

















I recently read that over 50 percent of the world's wealth is held by 2 percent of the world's population. Does this (alarming to me) fact make the argument that capitalism is alive, well, and functioning properly and that the other 98 percent of us would not be as well off as we are were the wealth spread otherwise?
Geithner and Summers seem to believe such is the case.
December 10, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
50% of the wealth held by 2% of the population.
Wealth is a social agreement that someone will have the exclusive right to make decisions about whatever the piece of property is. The types of decisions are also subject to social (and as a result, legal) agreement. So the owner of real estate can transfer ownership or can use it, while a lessor can only use the property the way the owner delegates the decision power. The Rule of Law, if enforced, is what allows the owner to delegate decisions to others and which prevents the nearest guy with an army from simply taking the property away and using it.
The ratio above says that one person in 50 can control the decisions made by half the population. That's only the overt decision-making power. That kind of wealth also influences everyone around it. Leverage, you know. Some financial, some social.
That suggests that there is very little difference in the power of government and the power of wealth. Governments are moving towards democracy. Wealth needs to make a similar transition.
Which is a long winded way of me saying that I agree with you about how alarming that ratio is. The power of wealth is way too concentrated. Here in America that power is becoming more concentrated, and the demand by the wealthy that the inheritance tax be eliminated is a major effort to consolidate their power.
December 10, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plan A: Get rid of Geithner and Summers.
December 10, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just not entirely sure that Americans are going to want less stuff, particularly when you look at the 10% productivity gain in the last quarter. Why should people tolerate working harder for fewer comforts and amenities. Geithner and Summers shouldn't be trying to get us back to 1999. They should be trying to get us beyond. But there's no doubt in my mind that Americans deserve better. You can't expect them to work this hard with the vacations, flat screens and big houses going to so few.
December 10, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two sales clerks in the store doing the job previously done by three -- and the customers wait longer.
Are American workers really working all that "hard"?
December 10, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a dynamo.
December 10, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Smashing chairs may not be productive but it does have its upside -- job opportunities for furniture repairers?
On the other hand . . .
December 10, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is what you get for making me wait online when you lay off your cashiers!
December 10, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or some new form of planned obsolescence.
C
December 10, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I'm working very hard. The productivity of the team I work on amazes me. My wife is also doing an incredible amount of work as she handles responsibilities that used to be distributed much more broadly, among more people. We and all our friends can report high levels of stress. The harder work and added stress is somewhat tolerable, because we are just happy to have stable jobs given the economic carnage in the country, and to have survived the debacle - so far.
I think its impossible to make long-term predictions about the new frugality while times are still so tough. Everybody feels poorer now, and they are very cautious about spending. But eventually salaries will begin to move up again, debt will be paid off and consumer spending will increase. I wouldn't expect the new equilibrium to look like the old, very relaxed one, but who knows?
I am struck recently by the manifold mysteries of the economic concepts of labor and employment. For example, we here at TPM Cafe often work very hard, and invest significant amounts of time, putting our thoughts into words. There is clearly a demand for the ideas that are posted, since many readers visit the site daily to consume them. And those visitors post their own words in turn for others to read. So what we have is a barter economy in ideas. There is production, value creation and exchange. It's clearly in that sense an economic enterprise. But as far as the metrics of our economy go, it is off the books.
On the one hand this is a testament to the industry and ceaseless creativity and ingenuity of human beings. Work is the most natural thing in the world. There is never any end to the work that needs to be, or could be done. And almost everyone can do something productive, something that provides something of value to meet the demands and desires of others. They often find ways to make something valuable and get something valuable in return.
But only some of this activity is measured, reported, assessed, taxed and regulated, and deemed part of the official or formal economy. And while the spontaneous industry and productivity are impressive, they might also represent a kind of economic primitivism: in an advanced economy, employment is ideally more regular, predictable and reliable. The goods that are produced are exchanged for more fungible forms of wealth mainly money - which gives its possessor the flexibility of either exchanging it for something else right away, or saving it for later. I wonder whether there is not some deep dysfunction in our economic system, where peoples' real values, desires and needs are not readily translatable into on the books economic activity, and where the productive energies and creativity of people are frozen and locked up in outmoded, institutionalized economies.
December 10, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
impossible to make long-term predictions about the new frugality
the numbers are inexorable--you can't party on weed you don't have, I am painfully aware of that phenomenon at this very moment.
December 11, 2009 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your linked page requires a log in and password
December 10, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
For a short take, go here.
December 10, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen,
What's the difference between a secular credit contraction and a cyclical credit contraction? Asset deflation making lenders afraid to lend based on asset price instead of a contraction caused by the business cycle?
The term "secular" throws me.
December 10, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
In simple terms "secular" refers to a long-term (5-20 years) trend; cyclical to a shorter term.
Cyclical credit contractions in ordinary recessions occur because inventories are worked off and workers laid off and households become anxious -- thus, firms' (and households') demand for credit is reduced. When the economy recovers -- and since WWII, each time it's done so pretty quickly -- the demand for credit to restock inventories and pay employees rises and thus, a credit expansion gets underway.
In a secular credit contraction firms (and households) conclude that the long-term return on borrowing does not justify the current interest cost. The earnings opportunities are simply not there.
It takes the advent of a new technology with concomitant profit opportunities or extreme pent-up consumer demand to get firms to start borrowing again. See, the Great Depression and the high savings accumulations which resulted from rationing during WWII.
December 10, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
How does this inventory restocking work in a mostly services economy?
And demand for services can be a fickle thing -- habits change, what's cool or not changes.
And even in the products areas, where goods are discretionary, people may find they can do without the granite counter tops and choose some synthetic instead.
I think economic theory may not have come to grips with the problems of restarting demand in the modern economy, especially one with a much more fractured media business where advertizing is no longer so effective in driving demand.
December 11, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which suggests we're experiencing a secular credit cycle?
December 11, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
And besides the much discussed increase in the productivity of labor, I think that there has been a continuing improvement in the productivity of capital.
For example, a number of horse tracks in NY and PA have put in slot machines. This is a cheap way to provide gambling services to the customers, rather than having them travel to Atlantic City, stay in hotels, eat in restaurants. You need a lot less capital in several areas for the same handle.
December 11, 2009 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Robert Reich explained very well in a recent post that why there can't be a "Plan B".
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/11/obama-china-and-wishful-thinking-about.html
December 10, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
How 'bout a little loyalty -- hmm?
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/robert_reich/2009/11/obama-china-and-wishful-thinki.php
December 11, 2009 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Plan B? What plan B?
December 10, 2009 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the plan is obvious: keep the unemployment high through the 2010/2012 elections so that voter rage will return the Republicans back to power. Works every time.
December 11, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink