Generally, if economic weakness — rising unemployment, falling stock prices and a lackluster housing market, to name a few indicators — lasts for two or more quarters, we're considered to be in a recession. Look for significant decline in economic activity, says the National Bureau of Economic Research. People in online financial groups believe the media plays a part in recessions by stirring up fears and economic anxiety.
The thinking is that news stories get people talking and then worrying about a recession, which in turn can spark a downturn. The idea that we can talk ourselves into a recession is not new, says Yale economics professor Robert J. More from Invest in You: Here's how to get to financial security even after starting late A better life with tech, but is it worth hundreds a month? One simple thing can brighten your financial picture.
Hearing about these economic periods of distress affects people's willingness to spend, which in turn impacts corporate profits. Any one column or news story is not going to start a recession, said Marc Goldwein, senior vice president and senior policy director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. However, it could function as a tipping point when the economy isn't on solid ground.
People can actually reduce consumption and growth [in the economy]," Goldwein said. If you think you're better off financially than you were four years ago, you may be a Republican. Those who reported higher household income were also more likely to say they are now better off than they were in A recession can feel personal. After all, says Robert J. Paul, Minnesota, the last recession is still fresh in many people's minds.
When investment portfolios and primary homes both lose value, it makes people uneasy. Almost half of survey respondents said they were taking active steps to strengthen their finances ahead of a recession, such as paying down debt or cutting their household spending. How well can you sleep at night if your portfolio is losing value? Sufficiently integrated countries are unable to form different perspectives on the future.
Beyond a certain threshold of integration between two countries, conditions will be such that where one country is seized by a self-fulfilling economic malaise the other country will necessarily panic as well. Or, the economic situation will be benign enough that investment is possible and calm prevails.
Below that integration threshold, however, it is possible for one country to remain unaffected by the panic of another country. The authors show how, in and , conditions were highly conducive to creating a self-fulfilling cycle of panic that was likely to lead to falling economic output and performance.
In particular, losses from financial firms led to deleveraging and a credit crunch made it difficult for firms to borrow. Low interest rates in many countries limited scope for central banks to use interest rate cutting as a monetary tool to promote growth. Also, high levels of government indebtedness restricted the ability of countries to stimulate growth through government spending.
Add a trigger event, such as the turmoil in US markets following its real estate crash and collapse of collateralized debt obligation markets, plus sufficient integration between countries, and a contagious panic and ensuing recession is difficult to avoid. As we head into on the back of a ten year bull market there are worrying signs of stress in the global economy. The dreaded inverted yield curve — where long term bond yields are lower than those for short-term bonds — has been sighted, historically a major marker of impending recession.
The US president is engaged in a trade-war-by-tweets with China. The UK is struggling to extract itself from the EU. All playing out against a background of a fourth industrial revolution — disruptive industry transformation driven by a tsunami of new technologies. Business has barely managed to shake off the effects of the Great Recession, who knows whether policymakers have the tools to mitigate the effects of another economic earthquake, should it strike any time soon.
Philippe Bacchetta is a professor of Macroeconomics. His research interests include international finance, financial crises, exchange rates and monetary economics. Monday was the worst day for stocks in almost two months, with the major indices down nearly a percentage point, following yet another bad monthly report on U.
Still, if you zoom out a little, the picture looks very good. One factor that sometimes worries the markets is economically relevant political dysfunction. I wrote a couple months back that the main reason investors might care about impeachment is a second-order concern: An angry Trump might lash out and do economically damaging things, like launch new trade wars.
Overall, these political risks are lower than they were a year ago. Another thing the markets care a lot about is monetary policy. Last December, an important disconnect emerged between market participants and the Federal Reserve. Investors were afraid the Fed was not taking recession risks seriously and that, even if an economic downturn started to materialize, the Fed might be unwilling to respond appropriately with interest-rate cuts.
So the Fed is also much less of a source of worry than it was a year ago. Not everything is great. Worries about economic growth in other regions of the world remain in place. And a big worry from a year ago — that manufacturing troubles would be contagious into the service sector, which makes up the vast majority of the economy — has not materialized.
0コメント